I can;t believe the shit you crapped out; simply beyond belief.
I just told you how insane this those argument is yet you bypassed my point and went to talking point. Not surprising considering your other posts.
What the frack are you even talking about. Do you even read what the hell you write.
Perverts can use this dumbass state law to enter a women's washroom because those legislators have no clue what a trans men or women look like seemingly, they're that dumb.
You really have no clue what your talking about.
Do you know what a trans man or woman looks like? How are "they" "dumb"?
I don't think the poster meant that the trans people are dumb. Some trans are fairly obvious to notice while others are not.
So let me get this correct: let's assume that I am some hormone-fueled teenage boy. Under the Charlotte ordinance (and without the NC law) I could go into the into the women's changing area at the local public pool and get as much as an eyeful of nude women as much as I want just because today I am identifying myself as female? Or a 25 year old woman can go into a men's locker room and expose herself and give some 10 year old boys their first lesson on female anatomy? And all of this would be completely legal?
There is a document from the Charlotte Council that covers this here:
"What if a person tries to use the law to disguise inappropriate or unlawful activity?
The ordinance does not permit or excuse inappropriate or unlawful activity. The ordinance protects legitimate use of facilities for transgender persons; it is not an excuse to misuse the law for criminal purposes or even for reasons of convenience.
A business may object to a non-transgender person seeking to use a restroom or changing facility for a false reason. A business may require that persons who do not have the protected characteristics of gender identity or gender expression must use the appropriate restroom. A business may also report or remove persons who are engaging in criminal activity.
A business concerned that a non-transgender person is using an inappropriate restroom or changing facility may ask that person to use the appropriate facility. If the person does not comply, the business may contact CMPD to file a trespassing complaint. Such enforcement is not deemed to be discrimination under the ordinance.
Additionally, the North Carolina indecent exposure laws remain valid in restrooms and locker rooms within the City of Charlotte. If a violation of the indecent exposure laws occurs, please contact CMPD."
The indecent exposure laws say same sex incidental exposure is legal but not same gender. That seems to suggest that someone transgender who has male body parts undressing in a female changing room or vice versa and exposing themselves would be charged with a misdemeanour.
I don't think the bathroom situation is complicated because women's bathrooms all have stalls. If you are such a committed straight male voyeur that you would dress up in women's clothing regularly to gain the trust of women so they wouldn't immediately report you for using their bathroom and you spend hours listening to the drivel they talk about in there while waiting for a good spying opportunity, you've reached a whole other level of perversion that deserves a merit badge. When it comes to the other way round, even straight women don't want to be sharing a bathroom with men. Even after queueing for hours in desperation while the men's bathroom is empty, they want nothing to do with it. I don't like using the bathroom after another guy has been in there, that warm seat is so unpleasant.
Unisex bathrooms aren't such a bad idea as long as they are designed properly and it would solve the queuing problems. The individual stalls just need to be isolated better. They should really be practically anechoic chambers anyway so nobody hears anything that's going on. They should also have flushing systems that close the lid before flushing because that's how a lot of the smell circulates. Closing the lid before flushing avoids throwing the particles into the air. This setup would be pleasant enough for anyone to be using and there can be a urinal wall similarly individually enclosed to save the virtual partitioning that men have to do now (look straight ahead at all times, choose a spot furthest from anyone currently using it etc).
The changing room situation is more complicated because of undressing and showering. This is treated differently for men and women too. Female sports news reporters go into male changing rooms to interview the players and have broadcast some men changing in the background. A male news reporter wouldn't be allowed into a female changing room. Sport is typically male-dominated and female news reporters have claimed that not being allowed into male changing rooms because of their sex puts them at a professional disadvantage:
If they are allowed in, then they violate the privacy rights of the male players; if they aren't then they are being treated differently in their profession based on their sex. But then the same would apply somewhat to male news reporters in female changing rooms.
The protections that are suggested against equality laws are almost always to protect women and girls from men, which is reasonable considering over 90% of all illegal sexual activity is committed by men. I think men would be able to cope pretty well no matter what body parts someone had in the men's changing room, same with other sexualities. The bigger risk is having someone transgender with male body parts in the female changing room, especially if they are still attracted to women as well as transgender women being vulnerable amongst men.
If she used the male changing facilities then it's understandable there would be harassment towards her. The men wouldn't be at risk. The worst thing that happens for men is on checking women out from head to toe and you work your way down: cute face, nice body... whoa, wasn't expecting that there. And then you just feel duped. It's not a major problem. So it doesn't make sense for women like her to change alongside men.
However, transgender women who have male body parts and especially who are attracted to women pose a threat to women and would probably make them feel uncomfortable changing alongside them. The indecent exposure laws should cover some of this but instead of a debate about what should be allowed and what shouldn't, it would be more productive to figure out how to accommodate these situations because transgender people are not going away. There are cases of people who are considered gender fluid:
Maybe they wear a suit sometimes and a dress at other times. They couldn't use both facilities for men and women when they wanted to. To have dedicated facilities for such a small group (about 1 in 500 people) wouldn't be cost-effective for every company and it also makes people forced to use them feel like they aren't considered to be the gender they identify with. One thing to keep in mind is that transgender people already use the facilities of the sex they identify with. They aren't relieving themselves or changing in the street. So it seems like the most obvious laws to support would be ones that support whatever setup is working and least likely to result in harassment or assault. The law is there to protect people, not to victimize them and the laws that protect transgender people have incorporated protections for others against their misuse. Whenever they result in outcomes that are undesirable then people will deal with those situations when they arise and the laws can be adjusted to accommodate.
These misunderstandings come about because of new and unfamiliar situations. When people live happily in an environment for a long time where certain aspects never change, it starts to feel like it's the way it ought to be. When something unfamiliar comes along, the natural reaction is to resist it and question where it will lead but the normality that you accept is unfamiliar to someone else. This doesn't mean people have to accept something that they consider harmful or objectionable but the objection to it shouldn't be formed solely from an individual perspective of how things ought to be at the expense of others and the objection should be reasonable.
To get a better understanding of the situation, it's possible to do some experimentation. Guys can find a dress from their mother/sister/partner, put it on, stand in front of the mirror and think seriously about how likely it is that someone who thinks about women the way guys do would go through that process to sneak into a bathroom to get closer to women. I'm not saying it would never happen but it's pretty unlikely and the harm caused to women like the person pictured above by forcing her to change with men would be a certainty. It can similarly be harmful having transgender women changing with other women:
One of those incidents was protesting the following pre-op transexual changing with schoolgirls:
The schoolgirls have as much right to feel comfortable in their environment. Perhaps the way forward is to have smaller undesignated rooms or spaces where people choose who they are comfortable with and have an option to exclude themselves from people they don't feel comfortable with. This goes beyond gender. A school kid shouldn't have to change in the same room as a school bully. Another option would be that these kind of facilities can have private areas that any person who doesn't feel comfortable can use. Some swimming pools have unisex changing areas with cubicles and no public nudity allowed. There isn't a solution that everyone would be happy with but people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that nature is producing more than just male and female just like it produces different physical abilities and attributes and accommodations are made.
I can;t believe the shit you crapped out; simply beyond belief.
I just told you how insane this those argument is yet you bypassed my point and went to talking point. Not surprising considering your other posts.
What the frack are you even talking about. Do you even read what the hell you write.
Perverts can use this dumbass state law to enter a women's washroom because those legislators have no clue what a trans men or women look like seemingly, they're that dumb.
You really have no clue what your talking about.
Do you know what a trans man or woman looks like? How are "they" "dumb
I actually personally know a dozen trans men and women personally, a
few being close friends and one of them is in my immediate family, so I
don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I do know what they look like and that's what makes this legislation moronic, especially because it sends trans men, who look, well like men into women's washroom and thus opens the door to the very thing this legislation supposedly is there to stop (because it will terrorize the women there) (tm). It is laughably Ironic and makes these people bigoted and idiots at the same time.
Most trans women, even pre-op or no-op, I've known in the past 30 years (at least 60 if counting all those I've come across), look more like Nomi in Sense8 (the Netflix show, who is a trans women); than the stereotype peddled in media and right wing press.
And even if they do not, because they're unlucky enough to be away from this average because of genetics and not have lived in a time were they could stop male puberty, that still wouldn't make them threatening in the context of public washrooms where there are individual stalls for each women, and laws on the books to punish lude behavior and sexual assaults if it happens, no matter who does it.
And that law conveniently forgets trans men, who ALWAYS look like regular men as soon as they've been on testosterone for a while. Those men are obviously never as threatening as "real men" (tm) and the women in those washrooms will sense that on sight... (yup, I'm being sarcastic).
All those panicky things mentioned in Marvin's post seems to be born from actual reality. Like I said, I've been around the trans community since the 1980s and most of them are so wary of creating a fuss, being outed or harassed, that they mostly keep a rather low profile. You'd probably not know who 90% of them are and most are so complexed about their body (which is not surprising considering they had to change in the opposite sex lockers all their lives) that they'd rather change in stalls and shower at home.
So are Apple and other companies saying that only their opinion matters? Are they better than the voters of North Carolina that wanted this? I thought the left didn't like big business and money in politics?
corporations are people too. why shouldn't they make their opinions known?
I'm a biological male who doesn't want biological females in the Men's Restroom when I'm using it. Don't my feelings count for something, too?
Restrooms are assigned by sex, not by gender. Gender is open to cultural interpretation, but biological sex is not. There are serious risks to creating open bathrooms, and hurt feelings isn't one of them.
Before the most tolerant and open minded people on these boards close their minds and start calling me hateful and bigoted, please note that I am all for equality. But, we must find a better solution than open restrooms.
I'd like to see your data on incidents of transgender induced violence in public restrooms. I find it far more likely that a trans woman in a men's bathroom will be assaulted by the men, than vice verse.
I'm a biological male who doesn't want biological females in the Men's Restroom when I'm using it. Don't my feelings count for something, too?
Restrooms are assigned by sex, not by gender. Gender is open to cultural interpretation, but biological sex is not. There are serious risks to creating open bathrooms, and hurt feelings isn't one of them.
Before the most tolerant and open minded people on these boards close their minds and start calling me hateful and bigoted, please note that I am all for equality. But, we must find a better solution than open restrooms.
I guess the person who disliked your post thinks it's ok for a 13 year old girl to have to use the mall restroom with a man who claims he identifies as a woman. This will come to a grinding halt when they realize this was the dumbest idea ever.
yep, we think it's ok. link your trans pedophila bathroom rape data, please.
There is nothing to show that the voters of North Carolina wanted this. The results at the ballot box will show if a majority of voters wanted this. And if they did, Apple and every other company is free to disagree and take their facilities and business elsewhere. After all, didn't the Supreme Court in Citizens versus United declare that corporations are individuals for the purpose of expressing their free speech rights? It's thinly disguised law to legalize discrimination under the guise of protecting religious freedom. Your "left" comment is little other than a hypocritical load designed to deflect from your own endorsement of discrimination and bigotry. The only person you are fooling is yourself.
You can call someone a bigot all you want, but it doesn't make it true. The bigots I see are those who demean honestly held religious beliefs of others with great frequency.
That being said, this is a bill about common sense in the bathroom. That may not appeal to the people of Fantasy Land, but in flyover country we're not insane like the radicals.
there is no common sense in what appears to be a woman having to use the bathroom with men.
god is just pretend and should never be used as the basis of public policy.
Do you know what a trans man or woman looks like? How are "they" "dumb
I actually personally know a dozen trans men and women personally, a
few being close friends and one of them is in my immediate family, so I
don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I do know what they look like and that's what makes this legislation moronic, especially because it sends trans men, who look, well like men into women's washroom and thus opens the door to the very thing this legislation supposedly is there to stop (because it will terrorize the women there) (tm). It is laughably Ironic and makes these people bigoted and idiots at the same time.
Most trans women, even pre-op or no-op, I've known in the past 30 years (at least 60 if counting all those I've come across), look more like Nomi in Sense8 (the Netflix show, who is a trans women); than the stereotype peddled in media and right wing press.
And even if they do not, because they're unlucky enough to be away from this average because of genetics and not have lived in a time were they could stop male puberty, that still wouldn't make them threatening in the context of public washrooms where there are individual stalls for each women, and laws on the books to punish lude behavior and sexual assaults if it happens, no matter who does it.
And that law conveniently forgets trans men, who ALWAYS look like regular men as soon as they've been on testosterone for a while. Those men are obviously never as threatening as "real men" (tm) and the women in those washrooms will sense that on sight... (yup, I'm being sarcastic).
All those panicky things mentioned in Marvin's post seems to be born from actual reality. Like I said, I've been around the trans community since the 1980s and most of them are so wary of creating a fuss, being outed or harassed, that they mostly keep a rather low profile. You'd probably not know who 90% of them are and most are so complexed about their body (which is not surprising considering they had to change in the opposite sex lockers all their lives) that they'd rather change in stalls and shower at home.
So if the answer is that they can look very different, with those differences meaning different problems, why are you calling legislators dumb and reducing the laws in question to perverts.
Anyone reducing the issue to pervert-fear are frankly on the wrong tack. Perverts gonna perv, whatever rules you place on the use of bathrooms. Allowing transgender people use of either/or bathroom doesn't decriminalize sexual assault.
I actually personally know a dozen trans men and women personally, a
few being close friends and one of them is in my immediate family, so I
don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I do know what they look like and that's what makes this legislation moronic, especially because it sends trans men, who look, well like men into women's washroom and thus opens the door to the very thing this legislation supposedly is there to stop (because it will terrorize the women there) (tm). It is laughably Ironic and makes these people bigoted and idiots at the same time.
Most trans women, even pre-op or no-op, I've known in the past 30 years (at least 60 if counting all those I've come across), look more like Nomi in Sense8 (the Netflix show, who is a trans women); than the stereotype peddled in media and right wing press.
And even if they do not, because they're unlucky enough to be away from this average because of genetics and not have lived in a time were they could stop male puberty, that still wouldn't make them threatening in the context of public washrooms where there are individual stalls for each women, and laws on the books to punish lude behavior and sexual assaults if it happens, no matter who does it.
And that law conveniently forgets trans men, who ALWAYS look like regular men as soon as they've been on testosterone for a while. Those men are obviously never as threatening as "real men" (tm) and the women in those washrooms will sense that on sight... (yup, I'm being sarcastic).
All those panicky things mentioned in Marvin's post seems to be born from actual reality. Like I said, I've been around the trans community since the 1980s and most of them are so wary of creating a fuss, being outed or harassed, that they mostly keep a rather low profile. You'd probably not know who 90% of them are and most are so complexed about their body (which is not surprising considering they had to change in the opposite sex lockers all their lives) that they'd rather change in stalls and shower at home.
So if the answer is that they can look very different, with those differences meaning different problems, why are you calling legislators dumb and reducing the laws in question to perverts.
Anyone reducing the issue to pervert-fear are frankly on the wrong tack. Perverts gonna perv, whatever rules you place on the use of bathrooms. Allowing transgender people use of either/or bathroom doesn't decriminalize sexual assault.
Read my fracking response or stop responding. They fracking are sending trans men who look like other men, in women's bathrooms with this state law. This is less comfortable for the women there than what they purport to be preventing; trans women, or someone posing as a trans women, who most times can't be distinguished from other women even if they're simply cross-dressing,
BTW, these guys are trans men and I can found hundreds of photos of different ones just like them. If you think they're exceptional, well they're not and that's coming from someone who knows a hell of lot of them. That last guy is in the US army BTW.
Considering the number of case "perv" men right now entering women's bathroom is close to zero, and this law purports to prevent those men from disguising as women to enter women's bathroom, well now they don't even have to (point 1) and since trans men will be there it also doesn't help women feeling uncomfortable with having men in their restroom (point 2). It fails utterly on all counts and that's why these people are dumb.
Trans women and men, generally go into the bathrooms of the sex they've transitioned to without issue. This actually creates and issue were there was none.
The preservation of privacy and morals are paramount here.
Mono woman or young girl should ever have to see a mans penis in a ladies restroom. EVER.
I am a man that has been going into men's restrooms for my entire life and I have never seen a penis there. I am also not looking. Where are your eyes while in there?
So are Apple and other companies saying that only their opinion matters? Are they better than the voters of North Carolina that wanted this? I thought the left didn't like big business and money in politics?
This type of comment is the result of schools no longer teaching Civics.
So if the answer is that they can look very different, with those differences meaning different problems, why are you calling legislators dumb and reducing the laws in question to perverts.
Anyone reducing the issue to pervert-fear are frankly on the wrong tack. Perverts gonna perv, whatever rules you place on the use of bathrooms. Allowing transgender people use of either/or bathroom doesn't decriminalize sexual assault.
Read my fracking response or stop responding. They fracking are sending trans men who look like other men, in women's bathrooms with this state law. This is less comfortable for the women there than what they purport to be preventing; trans women, or someone posing as a trans women, who most times can't be distinguished from other women even if they're simply cross-dressing,
BTW, these guys are trans men and I can found hundreds of photos of different ones just like them. If you think they're exceptional, well they're not and that's coming from someone who knows a hell of lot of them. That last guy is in the US army BTW.
Considering the number of case "perv" men right now entering women's bathroom is close to zero, and this law purports to prevent those men from disguising as women to enter women's bathroom, well now they don't even have to (point 1) and since trans men will be there it also doesn't help women feeling uncomfortable with having men in their restroom (point 2). It fails utterly on all counts and that's why these people are dumb.
Trans women and men, generally go into the bathrooms of the sex they've transitioned to without issue. This actually creates and issue were there was none.
I think we're actually arguing much the same point and it's just miscommunication. it wasn't apparent which legislators you were referring to and why you were labeling them as dumb. Which in a small way shows how complicated and sensitive to language these issues are.
So are Apple and other companies saying that only their opinion matters? Are they better than the voters of North Carolina that wanted this? I thought the left didn't like big business and money in politics?
Their opinion matters in that they can choose to leave and take jobs with them. Apple is concerned about the future. Evidently North Carolina would rather go back to 1956.
This is excellent news! It will prompt a federal response and I expect legal suits to be pushed up to the Supreme Court in short order. I expect our "lame duck" president to issue executive actions and we should have sexual orientation protected against discrimination in a year or two. Good job, for totally not thinking this through NC!
The preservation of privacy and morals are paramount here.
Mono woman or young girl should ever have to see a mans penis in a ladies restroom. EVER.
I am a man that has been going into men's restrooms for my entire life and I have never seen a penis there. I am also not looking. Where are your eyes while in there?
Yes the deplorable state of most public men's rooms would suggest most men don't look at their own penis while in there. Let alone anyone else's.
I'm a biological male who doesn't want biological females in the Men's Restroom when I'm using it. Don't my feelings count for something, too?
Restrooms are assigned by sex, not by gender. Gender is open to cultural interpretation, but biological sex is not. There are serious risks to creating open bathrooms, and hurt feelings isn't one of them.
Before the most tolerant and open minded people on these boards close their minds and start calling me hateful and bigoted, please note that I am all for equality. But, we must find a better solution than open restrooms.
Do realize that the only solution (counter-measure) to bathroom bills is to make gender-segragated bathrooms illegal. eg all buildings/building permits must build unisex/family bathrooms only, which means no cheap "male-only" toilets.
If the LBGT supports letting a man dress up LIKE a women and walk in on women then your more sick then I could imagine. By the way your DNA says your a man means your a man. Science 101. And slapping some BMW emblems on a Honda does not make it a Honda ask the dmv. Jimmy rigging a toe to look like a worn out vagina aar does not make it a vigina.
Comments
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/Documents/NDO FAQ'S-Public Accomodations_Final_3-14-16.pdf
"What if a person tries to use the law to disguise inappropriate or unlawful activity?
The indecent exposure laws say same sex incidental exposure is legal but not same gender. That seems to suggest that someone transgender who has male body parts undressing in a female changing room or vice versa and exposing themselves would be charged with a misdemeanour.
I don't think the bathroom situation is complicated because women's bathrooms all have stalls. If you are such a committed straight male voyeur that you would dress up in women's clothing regularly to gain the trust of women so they wouldn't immediately report you for using their bathroom and you spend hours listening to the drivel they talk about in there while waiting for a good spying opportunity, you've reached a whole other level of perversion that deserves a merit badge. When it comes to the other way round, even straight women don't want to be sharing a bathroom with men. Even after queueing for hours in desperation while the men's bathroom is empty, they want nothing to do with it. I don't like using the bathroom after another guy has been in there, that warm seat is so unpleasant.
Unisex bathrooms aren't such a bad idea as long as they are designed properly and it would solve the queuing problems. The individual stalls just need to be isolated better. They should really be practically anechoic chambers anyway so nobody hears anything that's going on. They should also have flushing systems that close the lid before flushing because that's how a lot of the smell circulates. Closing the lid before flushing avoids throwing the particles into the air. This setup would be pleasant enough for anyone to be using and there can be a urinal wall similarly individually enclosed to save the virtual partitioning that men have to do now (look straight ahead at all times, choose a spot furthest from anyone currently using it etc).
The changing room situation is more complicated because of undressing and showering. This is treated differently for men and women too. Female sports news reporters go into male changing rooms to interview the players and have broadcast some men changing in the background. A male news reporter wouldn't be allowed into a female changing room. Sport is typically male-dominated and female news reporters have claimed that not being allowed into male changing rooms because of their sex puts them at a professional disadvantage:
http://time.com/4061122/ludtke-kuhn-jaguars-colts/
If they are allowed in, then they violate the privacy rights of the male players; if they aren't then they are being treated differently in their profession based on their sex. But then the same would apply somewhat to male news reporters in female changing rooms.
The protections that are suggested against equality laws are almost always to protect women and girls from men, which is reasonable considering over 90% of all illegal sexual activity is committed by men. I think men would be able to cope pretty well no matter what body parts someone had in the men's changing room, same with other sexualities. The bigger risk is having someone transgender with male body parts in the female changing room, especially if they are still attracted to women as well as transgender women being vulnerable amongst men.
The following picture shows a transgender woman:
http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/3/18/charlotte-conservatives-threaten-repeal-trans-bathroom-bill-protections
If she used the male changing facilities then it's understandable there would be harassment towards her. The men wouldn't be at risk. The worst thing that happens for men is on checking women out from head to toe and you work your way down: cute face, nice body... whoa, wasn't expecting that there. And then you just feel duped. It's not a major problem. So it doesn't make sense for women like her to change alongside men.
However, transgender women who have male body parts and especially who are attracted to women pose a threat to women and would probably make them feel uncomfortable changing alongside them. The indecent exposure laws should cover some of this but instead of a debate about what should be allowed and what shouldn't, it would be more productive to figure out how to accommodate these situations because transgender people are not going away. There are cases of people who are considered gender fluid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigender
Maybe they wear a suit sometimes and a dress at other times. They couldn't use both facilities for men and women when they wanted to. To have dedicated facilities for such a small group (about 1 in 500 people) wouldn't be cost-effective for every company and it also makes people forced to use them feel like they aren't considered to be the gender they identify with. One thing to keep in mind is that transgender people already use the facilities of the sex they identify with. They aren't relieving themselves or changing in the street. So it seems like the most obvious laws to support would be ones that support whatever setup is working and least likely to result in harassment or assault. The law is there to protect people, not to victimize them and the laws that protect transgender people have incorporated protections for others against their misuse. Whenever they result in outcomes that are undesirable then people will deal with those situations when they arise and the laws can be adjusted to accommodate.
These misunderstandings come about because of new and unfamiliar situations. When people live happily in an environment for a long time where certain aspects never change, it starts to feel like it's the way it ought to be. When something unfamiliar comes along, the natural reaction is to resist it and question where it will lead but the normality that you accept is unfamiliar to someone else. This doesn't mean people have to accept something that they consider harmful or objectionable but the objection to it shouldn't be formed solely from an individual perspective of how things ought to be at the expense of others and the objection should be reasonable.
To get a better understanding of the situation, it's possible to do some experimentation. Guys can find a dress from their mother/sister/partner, put it on, stand in front of the mirror and think seriously about how likely it is that someone who thinks about women the way guys do would go through that process to sneak into a bathroom to get closer to women. I'm not saying it would never happen but it's pretty unlikely and the harm caused to women like the person pictured above by forcing her to change with men would be a certainty. It can similarly be harmful having transgender women changing with other women:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/21/why-these-high-school-girls-dont-want-transgender-student-a-in-their-locker-room/
http://www.blacklistednews.com/High_School_girls_stage_walkout_to_protest_transgender_student_in_their_bathroom/46000/0/38/38/Y/M.html
One of those incidents was protesting the following pre-op transexual changing with schoolgirls:
The schoolgirls have as much right to feel comfortable in their environment. Perhaps the way forward is to have smaller undesignated rooms or spaces where people choose who they are comfortable with and have an option to exclude themselves from people they don't feel comfortable with. This goes beyond gender. A school kid shouldn't have to change in the same room as a school bully. Another option would be that these kind of facilities can have private areas that any person who doesn't feel comfortable can use. Some swimming pools have unisex changing areas with cubicles and no public nudity allowed. There isn't a solution that everyone would be happy with but people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that nature is producing more than just male and female just like it produces different physical abilities and attributes and accommodations are made.
I do know what they look like and that's what makes this legislation moronic, especially because it sends trans men, who look, well like men into women's washroom and thus opens the door to the very thing this legislation supposedly is there to stop (because it will terrorize the women there) (tm).
It is laughably Ironic and makes these people bigoted and idiots at the same time.
Most trans women, even pre-op or no-op, I've known in the past 30 years (at least 60 if counting all those I've come across), look more like Nomi in Sense8 (the Netflix show, who is a trans women); than the stereotype peddled in media and right wing press.
And even if they do not, because they're unlucky enough to be away from this average because of genetics and not have lived in a time were they could stop male puberty, that still wouldn't make them threatening in the context of public washrooms where there are individual stalls for each women, and laws on the books to punish lude behavior and sexual assaults if it happens, no matter who does it.
And that law conveniently forgets trans men, who ALWAYS look like regular men as soon as they've been on testosterone for a while.
Those men are obviously never as threatening as "real men" (tm) and the women in those washrooms will sense that on sight... (yup, I'm being sarcastic).
All those panicky things mentioned in Marvin's post seems to be born from actual reality.
Like I said, I've been around the trans community since the 1980s and most of them are so wary of creating a fuss, being outed or harassed, that they mostly keep a rather low profile. You'd probably not know who 90% of them are and most are so complexed about their body (which is not surprising considering they had to change in the opposite sex lockers all their lives) that they'd rather change in stalls and shower at home.
god is just pretend and should never be used as the basis of public policy.
Anyone reducing the issue to pervert-fear are frankly on the wrong tack. Perverts gonna perv, whatever rules you place on the use of bathrooms. Allowing transgender people use of either/or bathroom doesn't decriminalize sexual assault.
They fracking are sending trans men who look like other men, in women's bathrooms with this state law.
This is less comfortable for the women there than what they purport to be preventing; trans women, or someone posing as a trans women, who most times can't be distinguished from other women even if they're simply cross-dressing,
BTW, these guys are trans men and I can found hundreds of photos of different ones just like them.
If you think they're exceptional, well they're not and that's coming from someone who knows a hell of lot of them.
That last guy is in the US army BTW.
Considering the number of case "perv" men right now entering women's bathroom is close to zero, and this law purports to prevent those men from disguising as women to enter women's bathroom, well now they don't even have to (point 1) and since trans men will be there it also doesn't help women feeling uncomfortable with having men in their restroom (point 2). It fails utterly on all counts and that's why these people are dumb.
Trans women and men, generally go into the bathrooms of the sex they've transitioned to without issue.
This actually creates and issue were there was none.