Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will never happen. But, to your point. Most of the spaces that matter. The large public spaces, gyms, movie theaters, office towers... college campuses... ALL have unisex facilities. That gym where the guy undressed in the ladies locker room. It had a genderless changing room that could eliminate friction for a transgender person. It cannot do anything about someone who wants to cause trouble. Like it or not, we have gender. The differences are real. Even newer elementary schools are being built with unisex facilities but we cannot allow things to go to a reductio ad absurdum extreme of having 10 or 20 private stalls who would pay for all that? Again, the issues are not while peoples pants are down, it is the interactions around the sinks and hand dryers.
Maybe you should take a trip outside of Portland. I have been in over a hundred malls, dozens of movie theaters, many office buildings, and more than a few college campuses, and I have NEVER seen a true unisex restroom.
Single stall restrooms with locks?
Check.
Family restrooms with a lock and room for multiple people, for the use of a parent or guardian with differently-gendered family members who require assistance or supervision in the restroom?
Check.
Unisex restrooms where multiple strangers simultaneously use the facilities, of any gender or orientation, regardless of whether there are locking stalls or not?
Never. Not even once.
A single person restroom is not a unisex or gender free restroom any more than a port-a-potty is.
As I said earlier, I think the bill is well-intentioned in that it seeks to create some kind of standard of behavior that everyone can be aware of, but it doesn't really solve the problems. Transgendered people are a new breed but they are here to stay, and there are going to be differences of opinion that aren't so easily resolved, particularly since the use of restrooms involve very sensitive privacy/safety issues. The only real solution I see is to provide single "family" restrooms like you see in many places now, but who is going to want to pay for that?
I am not sure if the law is well intentioned, but I certainly believe that some standard needs to exist. I think that that standard would be or could be based by law on physical genitalia alone, or even on appearance/clothes, but it might be based on having some sort of documentation (ID check sounds more reasonable than genitalia check) and behavior/ etiquette (what would be worse, a feminine guy in a dress minding his business in a stall or a female-born butch soliciting for attention from other ladies?).
It's a difficult situation and as any difficult situations it needs to be addressed carefully, on a case by case basis, with attention to everyone involved, and without prejudice.
Transgendered people are not a new breed, they've been medically recognized for decades. They have never been so spotlighted before now. With the added attention they've gotten I imagine we will see more attempts at laws like these. I don't think the intent of the law is particularly against transgendered people, but rather the fear that other people will exploit the loopsholes of interpretation and use them for a sexual gain. Actual transgendered people have little if any interest in the sexual parts of the sex they Identify with and would likely not cause any disturbance or make an advance at the others in the restroom.
A different concern of mine is if these laws are being used for political gain. I highly doubt politicians actually have an interest in singling out .3% of the population, but definitely have an interest in pandering to their base. South Dakota has an estimated 860,000 people in it, .03% of that is 2600 people. I am hoping the law makers are more worried about drunken frat boys walking into a womans room and proclaiming transgendered status, or something similar.
Didn't mean to suggest that sex change surgery is new, just that, as you said, its coming more into the public eye.
I'd agree that most transgendered people likely have little if any interest in the sexual parts of the sex they identify with, but that is only part of the issue -- the perception on the part of some members of the public that their use of women's restrooms poses a potential danger, or that it makes for an extremely unpleasant experience, should also be taken into account by lawmakers. Drafting laws should be about compromises as much as practically possible.
As far as politicians, you can count on them to exploit pretty much anything that might get them elected.
I realize that women would call for a manager for any gender non-conforming person, although they can do it now as well. What that manager person would do then? Asking driver license could be an option, but in many states a person can change DL prior (or without) to surgery. USA Passport can be obtained without it as well. And actually in most cases that person is expected by the doctor to live a full year as a female (and attend gender appropriate rest rooms) prior to any surgery.
Then the person might simply refuse to provide her id to just simple bathroom attendant. That would require a call to police, etc. In all practicality, this new law will not be enforced for the most time, until one day it gets enforced and a bunch of well-paid layers bring it to the courts. There is an opinion confirmed by several district courts and a side comment (although not a direct decision) by the Supreme Court that short of clear evidence of direct state interest, state law cannot single out anyone by their medical status or gender. That's why so many other states dropped the idea of making such laws. If a case comes all the way to the Supreme Court (with or without Justiice Scalia's replacement), such law would be dead on the spot.
And until it happens, many ladies would need to get used to the idea of carrying their DL to the restrooms.
All good points. But why wouldn't there be a significant state interest? Likelihood of disturbances resulting otherwise? At least in government facilities an argument might be made that there is a compelling state interest.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,953,657 times
Reputation: 16466
The ignorance on this issue is epic. The South Dakots Gov admits he has never even MET a trans person.
So tell me, if your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, PASSPORT, SOCIAL SECURITY RECORDS, DL, CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS - and every other govt issued legal document says you are a woman, does that make you not a woman? If the GOVERNMENT says you are a woman, you ARE a woman. You religious zealots don't get it both ways.
What about women who are born without uterus's or with abnormal vaginas? Are they not women? What about a woman who took steroids for whatever reason and has a big clitoris, is she not a woman?
This whole thing is the result of religious extremists and homophobes who have no real understanding of the issue but are afraid of anyone not exactly like themselves. These are the same people who hate blacks and immigrants.
Has anyone here EVER heard of a transgender person attacking a little girl in a bathroom? No? I didn't think so. It doesn't happen. (Yeah I know, 6 billion people on the planet it has probably happened, but probably less often than an asteroid strike.)
Transgender WOMEN do not attack or bother girls in bathrooms or locker rooms. They are not exhibitionists and I have never heard of anyone causing unease with any other woman, unless that woman is a religious whack job.
So I have met a couple of trans men. They looked like "butch" women. So you do a double take when the person walks in and you assume it is a man. Did this impact your day? No. By the time you are busy washing your hands and exiting. And everyone goes on with their day.
Now imagine you have known your whole life your body doesn't match your mind. You have done everything physical you can to put on the right appearance. And you can't just go out I the world and be normal. People force you to show id all the time just to go to the bathroom. You are not treated like a person. How would that feel?
A friend of a friend is trans (woman > man) and no matter which bathroom he chooses, he gets dissed. People confront him, and tell him he is using the wrong bathroom for both the men's and women's. He seeks out single stalls because there have been too many incidents.
Any man who is trying to be a fake trans person in order to see women going to the restroom already had problems this law doesn't address anyway. Why waste time on this. People just want to pee in peace.
Right, people want to pee in peace, and that's the purpose of this law.
Maybe you should take a trip outside of Portland. I have been in over a hundred malls, dozens of movie theaters, many office buildings, and more than a few college campuses, and I have NEVER seen a true unisex restroom.
Single stall restrooms with locks?
Check.
Family restrooms with a lock and room for multiple people, for the use of a parent or guardian with differently-gendered family members who require assistance or supervision in the restroom?
Check.
Unisex restrooms where multiple strangers simultaneously use the facilities, of any gender or orientation, regardless of whether there are locking stalls or not?
Never. Not even once.
A single person restroom is not a unisex or gender free restroom any more than a port-a-potty is.
Every single person participating in this thread (except you, apparently) knows what I meant by "unisex" restrooms. It is not what you mean.
The ignorance on this issue is epic. The South Dakots Gov admits he has never even MET a trans person.
So tell me, if your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, PASSPORT, SOCIAL SECURITY RECORDS, DL, CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS - and every other govt issued legal document says you are a woman, does that make you not a woman? If the GOVERNMENT says you are a woman, you ARE a woman. You religious zealots don't get it both ways.
What about women who are born without uterus's or with abnormal vaginas? Are they not women? What about a woman who took steroids for whatever reason and has a big clitoris, is she not a woman?
This whole thing is the result of religious extremists and homophobes who have no real understanding of the issue but are afraid of anyone not exactly like themselves. These are the same people who hate blacks and immigrants.
Has anyone here EVER heard of a transgender person attacking a little girl in a bathroom? No? I didn't think so. It doesn't happen. (Yeah I know, 6 billion people on the planet it has probably happened, but probably less often than an asteroid strike.)
Transgender WOMEN do not attack or bother girls in bathrooms or locker rooms. They are not exhibitionists and I have never heard of anyone causing unease with any other woman, unless that woman is a religious whack job.
And finally...
PEEING IS A HUMAN RIGHT.
Stop making so much sense and being a decent, compassionate human being.
It does matter I don't want a man who decided to become a women. In the bathroom with my mother or sister.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
