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.
Here we go again--the party that claims to be "smaller government" is costing taxpayers $2K a DAY just to meddle in the affairs of one of its cities (Big Brother strikes again--tell me again how Republicans believe in local control?) hoping to overturn a recently passed LGBT rights ordinance.
Please write to your state representative at this waste and overreach, regardless of how you feel about the ordinance itself.
How do you enforce keeping actual men out of the female restroom? Anyway it would be incumbent on the person to verify they are on a hormonal program (doctors note?) and if they cant just treat it like a man in the wrong place
The key here would be to base it on some more objective criteria instead of mental orientation. In fact, before they start HRT many trans folks do maintain sexual orientation of their assigned gender.
How do you enforce keeping actual men out of the female restroom?
As far as I know, someone says "get out" and perhaps calls security? As it is now, I don't think they would be arrested. And women use men's rooms a lot when there is a long line at theirs.
[/quote]
Anyway it would be incumbent on the person to verify they are on a hormonal program (doctors note?) and if they cant just treat it like a man in the wrong place[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it is a HIPAA violation to require anyone to divulge any kind of prescription treatment they are on. And what about non-transgender people who happen to be androgynous or even appear to be the "other" gender? Can anyone just start asking everyone in the bathroom to "show their papers?" I'm not arguing with you so much as trying to show you how ridiculously unenforceable this would be.
You are essentially advocating a "bathroom police".
Quote:
The key here would be to base it on some more objective criteria instead of mental orientation. In fact, before they start HRT many trans folks do maintain sexual orientation of their assigned gender.
"Sexual orientation" is a completely different scale than "assigned gender". There are gay and straight transgender people just as there are gay and straight cisgender (the tern for "non-trans") people. Or, someone may be a gay man who transitions to a straight woman, or even be a straight man and transition to a lesbian (e.g. Caitlin Jenner as a famous example). None of which is relevant to being able to go to the bathroom without harassment.
As far as "objective criteria", there is such thing as a "gender marker" where a person can be legally determined their target gender, but I am still not comfortable with having a police state where someone says "show me your papers" (thought that's better than "Show me your genitals" as many are proposing).
The fact is, true transgender people pose NO threat to anybody and in fact, it is almost a guarantee that if you live in a city of any size, you have already been in the bathroom with someone who was trans but "passable". Those people would look far more out of place and cause far more ruckus if they were forced to use the bathroom that matches their "below the waist" parts. Numerous cities already have the ordinance that Charlotte does, and there has not been a single case of the histrionic alarmist outcomes some are throwing fits about.
And in the process, the entire ordinance that makes Charlotte a more fair and equitable city, of which this "bathroom clause" is a tiny, tiny part, may be scrapped because of some crazies in the legislature obsessing about other people's genitals.
I personally don't know why there aren't just more single-stall bathrooms built in new buildings to begin with, or all single-stall bathrooms be marked as for everybody, since even some longtime "passable" transgender people try to avoid their rightful bathroom just in case someone were to try to make a fuss. But, I'm aware that there are cases where existing buildings don't have them or they are not convenient to large parts of the building. Thus, people need to use a rest room, for the same reasons anyone else does. Women's rooms all have stalls anyway, so other than (straight male) peeping toms or sex offenders--both of whom are breaking the law and need to be arrested--it is massive overkill to say nobody can use the bathroom without running a gauntlet of humiliating "proofs" when all they want to do is pee.
I would think this hypothetical evidence of HRT the person could keep at home and if someone freaked out (called the police) they could demonstrate that as evidence.
Your words are well and fine but I think you should talk to other side of the problem.
Why do we segregate?
Why do women not want to use the bathroom/change with men?
Finally, what makes a man?
You can sorta discuss ambiguities about what makes a gender but these women segregate because of SOMETHING, and typically, it is, what's in your pants.
So instead of talking about transgender needs you need to address what are the expectations of women. It seems obvious to me we don't segregate on gender identity but some mix of sexual orientation and gender expression. Obviously sex politics makes previously bright lines more blurred but I don't think a woman would make a distinction between a 200 lb male on jeans or a 200 lb male sex gender female in a dress.
I think it's very obvious there isn't a distinction between a pre-op MTF lesbian and a regular guy, from the dimension of bathroom segregation. Their gender identity really has no bearing on why we segregate the sexes.
Until they get on HRT a trans person is no different than their pre-trans identity. They have simply affirmed their status as trans gender. It's incumbent on us to identify a new pattern of lifestyle for these times and it seems clear people still like gender segregation and so, to me, doing something like requiring them to be on HRT seems like a sensible and reasonable goalpost to justify bathroom switching.
I'm not bothered by using the restroom with trans folk but I would be as opposed to my GF/Daughter/Wife bathroom/changing with a non HRT mtf lesbian as I would another man...because on the dimension of the criteria I care about they are indistinguishable from a man.
And I understand trans folks do this and everything is fine but I'm sure many men would bathroom/change with women and it would be fine.
It's really about whats the rationale for gender segregation and you know this is the south historically we are a little more uptight about the sexes, and why don't trans folks have some sort of obligation to the public to preserve social norms.
***
Crossing bathrooms based on gender identity fails to capture that transgender folks are transitioning from one gender to another. I'm simply pointing out if that's the threshold then generally you would allow folks to cross over whom are really more like men than women. Setting a threshold on something like HRT would let the public know this person has reached a point in their transitioning process where they really do need to switch over.
Here we go again--the party that claims to be "smaller government" is costing taxpayers $2K a DAY just to meddle in the affairs of one of its cities (Big Brother strikes again--tell me again how Republicans believe in local control?) hoping to overturn a recently passed LGBT rights ordinance.
Please write to your state representative at this waste and overreach, regardless of how you feel about the ordinance itself.
Trump proves at least 1/3 of Republicans are crazy.
Please don't attempt to derail the thread by bringing nothing related to this thread as this is not a national issue.
Unless he voices his concern, which I doubt it as he has bigger fish.
Charlotte caused this as they made an ordinance for anyone to choose a restroom or locker room base on how they feel.
This is going to create bathroom laws that everyone will have to adhere to, so no longer jumping to the other restroom when other is busy and ya gotta go.
The state had to act before the Charlotte ordinance takes effect in 2 weeks as it will create more problems like at airports etc.
Charlotte should had least attempted with city own buildings versus forcing commercial business to comply.
I'm a democrat and I think they are making the right decision.
OK, who really cares about this at all. It is a non-issue. Ever been to Starbucks. Everyone uses the same bathroom. Been to a college lately. This is an issue that riles up older conservative people. Young people could care less.
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.
