I have seen males in dresses in bathrooms, and also teenage boys.

I think we need to look at why we have separate bathrooms, and if they are necessary. If they are not necessary, do away with them.

If they ARE necessary we need a working definition of "man" and "woman", not just "I feel like one".

Waiting for the first case of a heinous crime against a girl by a man legally inside a girls' bathroom.

Also, you're libertarian argument is inconsistent... why is it ok for a cake shop to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple but not ok for that same cake shop to refuse to let a person who is a man on this birth certificate into their women's bathroom?

Libertarianism permits people to discriminate and treat others in a demeaning manner on private property.

If a person with lipstick, nail polish, chest hair and a hard on takes off her clothes in a park and sits quietly on a bench in plain view of young girls, this would be considered a crime - presumably because being exposed to such behavior is in some way harmful to young girls. She would be arrested, probably do time in the male housing area of a jail, and probably be listed as a sex offender for the rest of her life.

In fact, if the same person fully dressed walks past a couple of adult women on the jogging trail, minding her own business, not even making eye contact, with just her dick sticking out, that would be a crime too.

But, if that same person walks into a women's locker room where young girls are changing clothes and showering, takes off her clothes and joins them in the shower, that should be of no concern whatsoever. Right?

And don't say something stupid like that won't happen.

Snoopy Says:

"Libertarianism permits people to discriminate and treat others in a demeaning manner on private property."

Where exactly in the philosophy of libertarianism does it permit someone to ask for your personal identification papers before permitting you to enter the bathroom? This would actually seem to violate the libertarian principle that your right to swing freely your arms ends where another persons nose begins. You as a private citizen do not in general have a vested interest in demanding another citizens birth certificate, social security card, passport, bank statements, etc...

In order to demand such documentation from someone else you need an extremely compelling reason. Self appointed bathroom bouncer isn't sufficient to require official government paperwork.

There is something truly perverse when we try to turn a philosophy which is purportedly about freedom and liberty for individuals into one about bullying, harassment, and control of others.

Ken R,

That is a very poorly constructed argument.

The very same line of reasoning could be used to restrict any adult from using any public bathroom.

Unless you are ready and willing to support that proposition you should try a different approach to justify your own personal discomfort.

Just so you are aware, most adults are not in the habit of stripping down and exposing themselves to children when using public restrooms. Usually you try to do your business inside of a private stall outside of public view.

Surely, this realm of personal liberty must include the right of all persons to determine their own gender identity, and to be free from all forms of governmental discrimination because of their gender identity.

You don't have a right to determine your own gender. The idea is ridiculous. There is no right to determine what you were born with.

I just see this whole "use the restroom for the gender you identify with" as an impending disaster.

Patrick Says:

"You don't have a right to determine your own gender. The idea is ridiculous. There is no right to determine what you were born with."

That is an opinion you hold that many others do not agree with.

That is really what is at the core of this ongoing debate Patrick. As a result it isn't good enough to just declare that your position is "correct" and call it a day.

You and some others perceive gender as something that is etched into your chromosomes, while others see it as a matter that is a bit more complicated than this notion.

Here is the other side of the argument. The break of the biological and psychological aspects and call one sex and the other gender. This is unfortunately one of those situations where the English language isn't so great because traditionally sex and gender are synonyms.

For the sake of this argument though we have to defer to the argument that is being made that distinguishes between these terms otherwise we aren't talking the same language and we will continually make fallacies of equivocation.

In any event, proponents of the idea that you do have the right to select your gender argue that you are born with a sex that is determined by your chromosomes, but that your gender doesn't necessarily have to match your sex.

The argument is that various developmental factors might push a person born with both an x and a y chromosome to feel as if they are psychologically a woman.

Because development is so complicated this isn't so far fetched from a scientific standpoint. If for example a fetus is exposed to abnormally high levels of estrogen or abnormally low levels of testosterone during key phases of development the brain can in fact be permanently modified.

As a result I am not quite as confident as you that this idea is ridiculous. I think it is probably possible for a person to feel line a man or a woman independent of their chromosomes or outward sexual characteristics.

"I just see this whole "use the restroom for the gender you identify with" as an impending disaster."

I think this whole issue would go away if we just started implementing single stall bathrooms that anyone can use.

"Waiting for the first case of a heinous crime against a girl by a man legally inside a girls' bathroom."

If (when) it happens no news outlet in the country will dare report on it.

"But the enactment of the law is intended to demean transgender people in the same manner as laws in southern states once demeaned African Americans by prohibiting "colored men" from going into restrooms for "white gentlemen" and prohibiting "colored women" from going into restrooms for "white ladies.""

Bull.

It's not about you, cupcake.

If and when it occurs in my state, I will have no choice whatsoever but to avoid bathrooms designated as "unisex" - or whatever - unless they are single occupancy.

Because I - like the majority of white hetero men - cannot survive a single accusation of misconduct by the first minor to object to my presence.

Political correctness can and does make one a criminal.

...proponents of the idea that you do have the right to select your gender argue that you are born with a sex that is determined by your chromosomes, but that your gender doesn't necessarily have to match your sex.

Fine. The thing is: this has pretty much zilch to do with which toilet you should use. People pee more than they poop. Men's toilets have these things called urinals. If your physical gender provides you with a penis, it makes sense to go pee in a urinal.

Deciding which room to use to eliminate bodily waste does not have to be tied up with your gender identity. The gender-activists blow this whole issue out of proportion.

The argument is that various developmental factors might push a person born with both an x and a y chromosome to feel as if they are psychologically a woman.

The key word here is "psychological". People in this situation suffer from either a birth defect or a mental illness.

Consider: depression is also a serious illness. We don't go around prohibiting sad movies, or getting upset when people make jokes about suicide. Yet the LGBT activists do want to police thought and expression of everyone else.

Transsexuals deserve consideration, and in many cases treatment. They don't need catered to, in fact, I submit that catering to them is counterproductive, just as catering to severe depression would be.

I see private restrooms in smaller public venues and family restrooms in bigger ones, so isn't this almost a moot point now? I love the family restroom. Our eldest was very tall and women started protesting his presence when he was still in preschool. It would be more comfortable for dads to take care of daughters too. Of course, there are no restrictions to the family restroom, so it is perfect for people that don't fit into a binary system.

If a person with lipstick, nail polish, chest hair and a hard on takes off her clothes in a park and sits quietly on a bench in plain view of young girls, this would be considered a crime - presumably because being exposed to such behavior is in some way harmful to young girls.

Um, we're talking about somebody urinating in a bathroom stall, not committing a sex crime.

The truth is, the people most likely to be victims of a sex crime are probably transgender people (men dressed like ladies) using a men's room.

From the NYT's editorial board:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/opinion/transgender-bathroom-hysteria-contd.html?partner=IFTTT

State legislators in Tennessee, Kansas, South Carolina and Minnesota are pushing similar absurd measures. The lunacy at the heart of this demand to police every public bathroom was captured by Leon Lott, the sheriff of Richland County in South Carolina, who told state lawmakers last week that the law would be unenforceable because his officers could not be in the business of inspecting people’s genitals.

“In the 41 years I have been in law enforcement in South Carolina, I have never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom,” Sheriff Lott wrote in a letter to the committee studying the state’s bathroom bill. “This is a non-issue.”

Do any of you know any transgender people? I do. Why assume that because somebody male dresses as a woman, that this person is a predator?

Check this out. Here's a trans person who'd be forced to use the ladies room:

https://twitter.com/_michaelhughes1/status/575659231841378304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

More: "Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms"

http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.UPxeXsgpF

Big fat zero:
Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union told Mic that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation. Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Mic in an email that there isn't any firm data to corroborate these lawmakers' claims, and that NCTE has "not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public's stereotypes and fears about transgender people."

The Advocate noted the same glaring fact last month regarding Texas' bathroom legislation: "There has never been a verifiable reported instance of a trans person harassing a cisgender person, nor have there been any confirmed reports of male predators 'pretending' to be transgender to gain access to women's spaces and commit crimes against them."

Alachua County Crisis Center victims advocate Ashley Flattery told the Miami Herald, "This kind of idea that somebody is going to be assaulted in the bathroom by someone, and claim they have the right to be there because they are trans, is imaginary."

Mic has requested statistical evidence from state bathroom bill sponsors Senator C.B. Embry (Ky.), Rep. Gilbert Peña (Texas) and Rep. Artiles (Fla.). None of these lawmakers have returned Mic's request for comment.

Why the news is so focused on the women's restrooms? I haven't seen/heard anyone say "I don't someone with a vagina in the men's rooms!" so far.

The law covers public buildings. It was intended to address a Charlotte law that expanded the state's discrimination protections to transgendered (surgically and otherwise) people, and allowed students in public schools to use whichever restroom they were comfortable using.

The public school aspect of Charlotte's expanded protections set off alarms in the state capital and resulted in a law that was introduced, debated, passed, and signed into law in one day. It's disingenuous to argue that a law was fairly debated when it was completely enacted in one day.

Waiting for the first case of a heinous crime against a girl by a man legally inside a girls' bathroom.

Do any of you know any transgender people? I do. Why assume that because somebody male dresses as a woman, that this person is a predator? ~ Amy Alkon at April 18, 2016 5:00 AM

...nor have there been any confirmed reports of male predators "pretending" to be transgender to gain access to women's spaces and commit crimes against them. ~ Amy Alkon at April 18, 2016 5:04 AM

For the most part, transgendered people are not sexual predators. However, sexual predators can claim to be transgendered to gain access to women's spaces, and despite The Advocate's claim to the contrary, it has happened.

A Toronto man claimed to be transgender to gain access to a women's shelter and sexually assaulted several women in it.

...most adults are not in the habit of stripping down and exposing themselves to children when using public restrooms. Usually you try to do your business inside of a private stall outside of public view. ~ Artemis (Orion) at April 18, 2016 1:04 AM

The law also covers locker rooms, where people do strip down in plain view.

And it wasn't designed to protect the children from "most adults," just the ones who prey upon children.

I think this whole issue would go away if we just started implementing single stall bathrooms that anyone can use. ~ Artemis (Orion) at April 18, 2016 1:19 AM

Not an unreasonable idea, but not a practical idea for restrooms / locker rooms that need to handle a large number of people (e.g., in public schools).

Or older buildings. Who bears the cost of converting former mass-use public restrooms into single stall ones? All for the benefit of 0.3% of the population.

Check this out. Here's a trans person who'd be forced to use the ladies room:

Amy's link

Amy Alkon at April 18, 2016 5:02 AM

Since most surgically transgendered people get their birth certificates legally changed, this person would not be affected by the law.

I am struck by the dichotomy as a male if I get drunk and urinate in a place where a female could see me I can go to jail and be placed on a sex offender list for life. And now public rest rooms will be places where biological females can be. So using a urinal has become a sex crime.

Essentially men are no longer legally allowed to use public bathrooms.

Also, the unenforceability argument is stupid. You don't have enough cops to prevent every murder by policing every person every day either. Should we just scrap those laws on murder as 'unenforceable' too?

I need to be comfortable in sending my 7 year old niece into a public restroom alone and also need to be sure that teenage boys are not in a public school locker room. (Girls that age have enough on their plate w/o this.)

How these people "feel" is not my problem. If they need counseling they should get it. They are not handicapped or special needs children/adults.

Do you know whether Michael Hughes is post-op? You can't get reassignment surgery overnight. People usually spend a few years at least living as the other gender and getting hormone treatments before having reassignment surgery and qualifying for the sex change on his/her birth certificate.

Everyone loves the public-shower example. Where are people still taking naked showers in front of each other, without stalls? I've been a gym rat my whole adult life, and I haven't seen this scenario in 20 years. There are even stalls just for changing in locker rooms. Maybe there will be one old lady strutting around nude, and everyone averts her eyes in horror.

Most child predators identify as heterosexual males, and they already have "access" (by detractor logic) to children in their own restroom under existing law. I don't believe this so-called concern is legitimate; it's an excuse to make it clear that the "freaks" should not feel protected and should just stay home. Detractors who otherwise support free speech nonetheless want to hide behind the precautionary principle and restrict the liberties of others where no harm is being done, on the basis that /they/ feel uncomfortable. (My argument here applies to public accommodation. I think private businesses should be able to do what they want, including discriminate against anyone for any reason.)

If someone wanted an outrageous accommodation like "I believe I am a cat; therefore build me a giant litter box," then I would understand the pushback. But this tiny percentage of the population just wants access to what's already there.

I don't think anyone's worried about Trans people attacking others, amy. It's about the pervs who will claim to be, in order to gain access. I don't see the issue with using the restroom that matches your genitalia: penises pee in the men's room, vulva pee in the womens. Once you've made the absolute decision to be what you "identify" as, and get the genitalia to match, then you get to switch restrooms. Easy enough.

"Where exactly in the philosophy of libertarianism does it permit someone to ask for your personal identification papers before permitting you to enter the bathroom? "

Artemis, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you neither understand nor approve of libertarianism. So let me tell you how this situation works: If you're on my private property, I have the right to ask you for any of your papers I want to see. You have the right to say no, in which case you can leave. See how that works?

And as far as large public events, I can already tell you how this ends: an outdoor space filled with row after row of Johnny-on-the-spot units. A few hand sanitizer stations and tampon/pad dispensers on poles. All those little amenities, things like running water and paper towel dispensers and mirrors and room in the stall to turn around and change clothes? They're history.

And since no one else has dared to say it, I will: You know why this is all happening? Because the Left loves being transgressive and shocking. They're cackling with glee at how much they've upset everyone. It's how they get their jollies. They don't give a damn about transgendered people; it's simply a convenient wedge issue. Well, I'm Gen X, and we've been putting up with this bullshit from the Boomers all of our lives. Here's our slogan: "Shocking is trite". If I'm in a rest room and some cross dresser comes in obviously wanting to get noticed in an "I'm invading your space, ha ha ha" way, I'm going to be all "Good afternoon, nice day outside isn't it." I'm not giving them the satisfaction.

Cousin Dave, do you have any trans friends? You sound like my dad. You think these people are living this way for attention, even though it's the worst kind of attention.

Momof4, what's to stop a perv from doing this now? No one's checking birth certificates or doing dick checks. A man could dress up to pass as a woman, even bypassing the trans consideration altogether, and get himself access to the woman's room. Some women who identify as women look like men due to short haircuts, heavy build, etc.--so people are hesitant to confront, so it would be easy to pull off.

So let's say pervs get "access." What are they getting access TO? Being in the same facility, with stalls, as young girls? And they might lob their dick out at the handwashing station? I would like to know what people are envisioning, and how it's different from them being alone with young boys.

A few months ago I was riding the Metro home and a guy took out his tallywacker and started flopping it around. That's against the law. Laws weren't going to stop him.

Twelve states have trans accommodation laws going back to 2001, and there are no reported incidents of sexual assault stemming from this legislation.

Freedom of association. A man may declare that he is a woman, or a dinosaur. Others don't have to agree with him.
If allowing him into the women's bathroom is important to him because it confirms - validates - his belief that he is a woman, then, to those who disagree with his definition of "woman", it is equally important that he not be allowed in the women's bathroom.
Further if bathrooms are private places, then those who "don't belong" violate privacy. The neutral principle is negative freedom. If people don't want him in their bathrooms, then he may demand a bathroom of his own. He may not demand entrace into theirs. This subject to economic and practical limitations. But these concerns of property and utility (... as in utilitarianism) do not favor the minority. They favor the majority of those who are forced to pay taxes.

In the 1960s it was important to Alabamans that black people not be integrated into public facilities. Those people paid taxes. Civil liberties should not be defined by majority rule.

You should not be permitted to restrict others from *public* facilities based on unsubstantiated "risks" or your personal discomfort. That's like saying you shouldn't have to see creepy looking people in a public park or watch ugly people kiss on the sidewalk.

Private businesses should be able to decide for themselves, but I think you will see that given a choice, nearly all will accommodate.

Every teenage straight boy who is taking PE will suddenly discover that he's trans, and demand to use the girls locker room.

I can't see any problems there...

And yet it's never happened, even in the many places that allow for this accommodation since 2001, possibly because common sense and fear of social opprobrium prevail.

Again, you are using the precautionary principle or a type of prior restraint to restrict someone else's liberty. ("Liberty" referring to public accommodations.)

This seems like the opposite of libertarianism. I don't understand why it has support among some of my compatriots.

As I stated before, this law was passed hastily and lacked a serious debate. How can the government of North Carolina hold that the law reflects the will of the people of the state if there wasn't a days-long debate over it? Kinda like Obamacare - passed on a partisan line with contrary opinions shut down and silenced.

It was all started when the Charlotte City Council expanded the protected classed covered by NC law to include people who identified as the opposite sex and allowed public school students to use whichever restroom and locker room with which they were comfortable. People outside of Charlotte (and some inside) didn't like the idea of boys in their daughters' locker rooms.

Advocates for the non-surgically transgendered tend to dismiss such concerns as unreasonable phobias or hate speech. But the concerns are real and deserve a considered (rather than a knee-jerk) response - if only so we don't get laws and controversies like this that distract us from the real issues we should be addressing (ISIS, government insolvency, underfunded pension funds, etc.).

You should not be permitted to restrict others from *public* facilities based on unsubstantiated "risks" or your personal discomfort. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 7:22 AM

Then why have segregated restrooms at all? Why not let everyone use a common room? Shoot, why not just have toilets out in the open? /reductio ad absurdum

"Unsubstantiated risks" and "personal discomfort" have been the basis of many long-standing laws. We have segregated restrooms (and require them) because women are uncomfortable sharing a restroom with men and perceive a risk in doing so.

Restrooms are segregated based on genitalia, not perceived gender. Harsh? Perhaps to the 0.3% of the population that identifies strongly with the opposite sex, but to the other 99.7% of the population, not so much.

We already have plenty of laws that are on the books and are offensive to a small percentage of the population. These laws stay on the books and are upheld by the courts because they promote the general welfare without interfering with that small percentage's ability to exercise its own freedoms.

Requiring that a person with male genitalia use a men's room is not interfering with that person's ability to exercise his freedoms of speech, bearing arms, assembly, press, religion, etc. - even if he identifies as a woman.

In the 1960s it was important to Alabamans that black people not be integrated into public facilities. Those people paid taxes. Civil liberties should not be defined by majority rule. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 7:22 AM

Love, just love, how racial segregation always gets brought into these conversations - as if sexual behavior and racial origins are exactly the same thing.

Jim Crow laws were imposed by state governments. Segregation of public facilities may have been less important to Alabamans than you imagine.

Under the "separate but equal" doctrine upheld initially by SCOTUS, segregating facilities was held to not interfere with the exercise of Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms by the segregated parties. The doctrine was overturned because it turned out that separate actually precluded equal and made African-Americans into second-class citizens.

In this case, folks with male genitalia who identify as female are not being forced to use second-rate separate facilities. In fact, they get to use the same facilities that other people with male genitalia use.

This is NOT about men in dresses who look like a woman, because those are rare. The cases that have made the news once trans people are permitted in bathrooms (e.g., the new NYC rules) is a man NOT in a dress who wants to share a locker room with the ladies/girls. Or a high school boy (with genitals intact) who claims to be a girl and wants to shower with the girls. In such cases it is no longer illegal either to look or for the man/boy to get undressed. Therefore a man can decide to shower with the ladies. Insisting it is only about restrooms with stalls is missing the point. It includes beach shower rooms, YMCAs, gyms, etc. And it is illegal to throw a man out just because he is not wearing a dress and there is no requirement for proof--just read what deBlasio said about it. The point is not that this will happen on a daily basis, but that if a man wants to go in you can't stop him and if you beat him up you will get arrested. If a man goes in to a school naked--3yrs in jail. But if he goes into the ladies locker room and gets naked--all fine and dandy. In what universe is this ok?

Artemis: "Just so you are aware, most adults are not in the habit of stripping down and exposing themselves to children when using public restrooms."

That's true. Most are not. Only some.

http://mynorthwest.com/188993/man-caught-undressing-in-front-of-girls-at-green-lake-locker-room/

Is it OK if a man is in a women's locker room if he keeps his clothes on?

How would it be less disturbing for women and girls changing and showering in a women's locker room if a male who identifies as a woman comes in and undresses vs. a male who identifies as a man comes in and undresses?

And yet it's never happened, even in the many places that allow for this accommodation since 2001, possibly because common sense and fear of social opprobrium prevail. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 8:38 AM

It has happened. It happened in Toronto earlier this year.

Granted, that was only once, but explain to the women he assaulted (who were in the shelter hiding from another attacker) how important it is for anatomical men to be allowed in the women's shelter based solely upon their word that they're transgender.

The problem in Toronto was caused by sheltering a convicted sex offender--i.e., not doing a background check. (He could have accomplished the same in a homeless shelter for men. Many shelters are co-ed, etc.) This is like saying legislation against people with brown hair would have prevented his crimes. Technically that's true, but that's not the appropriate measure.

There will always be ways that sexual predators, exhibitionists, and other mentally ill people can gain access to potential victims. You can't cut off every possible avenue--especially unlikely ones. For example, is there a law preventing minors from being alone with clergy? Much higher stats on that one!

"Love, just love, how racial segregation always gets brought into these conversations - as if sexual behavior and racial origins are exactly the same thing."

When countering an argument that public/taxpayer majority opinion should prevail, the analogy tracks.

You're amazed that a law can be passed in one day? I'm amazed this isn't OBVIOUS: O B V I O U S

No decent adult male wants to be in a bathroom with an underage girl that's not his. Period.

Prison is the distinct and immediate possibility.

Admit it: if you found out your daughter was in the bathroom and a 50-something man came in there today, you'd want his junk cut off.

You're telling me changing a sign on the door would make that okay for you?

And what in the world are some of you doing arguing about "enforceability"? Accusations don't depend on deterrence - only the opportunity.

Aside from that, ladies, I don't want to hear that big plate of chili you had come out. We're all animals, I get it, but being reminded of it daily is not what anyone wants. You want to be reduced to the "uncovered meat" claimed by that Muslim jerk? Here's that small step.

Lots of people are talking about LGBT people as if this law only affects them.

It doesn't.

Insufficient Poison:

"Everyone loves the public-shower example. Where are people still taking naked showers in front of each other, without stalls?"

"There will always be ways that sexual predators, exhibitionists, and other mentally ill people can gain access to potential victims."

Yes indeed. One way is to pass laws that legalize or facilitate their access.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227562/Colleen-Francis-Outrage-transgendered-woman-permitted-use-college-womens-locker-room-exposing-himself.html

Many shelters are co-ed, etc. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:23 AM

At least one of the two at which Hambrook assaulted women was not. It was a women and transgendered men only emergency shelter. He gained entrance by claiming to be transgendered.

The problem in Toronto was caused by sheltering a convicted sex offender--i.e., not doing a background check. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:23 AM

It was an emergency shelter. No time to do a background check. And Ontario law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity, so making him wait for a background check while not making women wait was illegal.

He could have accomplished the same in a homeless shelter for men. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:23 AM

He could have sexually assaulted multiple women in a homeless shelter for men? Do tell.

There will always be ways that sexual predators, exhibitionists, and other mentally ill people can gain access to potential victims. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:23 AM

Yes, and poorly-thought out laws like Ontario's Bill 33 make it easier for them to reach victims.

For example, is there a law preventing minors from being alone with clergy? Much higher stats on that one! ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:23 AM

In the wake of the clergy (and non-clergy) sex abuse scandals, most organizations (including government ones) have adopted rules governing interactions between adults in their employ and youths in their care.

When countering an argument that public/taxpayer majority opinion should prevail, the analogy tracks. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 18, 2016 9:28 AM

Again, the assumption that Jim Crow was a majority opinion.

Majority opinion does prevail in the US. The courts are there to ensure that majority opinion laws do not trample the rights of the minority, not to ensure those law don't offend them.

Racial segregation was overturned because it trampled the rights of African-Americans and overturning it did not endanger whites or trample their rights, no matter how much it offended some of them.

And sexual behavior is very different than race, so the tracking is disjointed at best.

==============================

As much as you don't want to admit it, Poison, Ontario's law prohibiting any discrimination on the basis of gender identity made it easier for Hambrook to reach and assault those women.

Does that mean we can't create a law or process that protects people and still respects the gender-confused (for want of a better word)? No. Passing a law overnight (like NC did) or passing a poorly thought-out law (like Ontario and Charlotte did) are not the answers.

This was an interesting video compilation of various men using tranny rights to further their kinks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ

Another perspective on Colleen Francis, the transgender lesbian (likes to dress like a woman and use her dick to have sex with women) who is legally allowed to be naked in the women's locker room when the high school girls swim team and children's swim team (girls as young as 6) are using it.

http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-silence-is-deafening-over-colleen.html

"But, if that same person walks into a women's locker room where young girls are changing clothes and showering, takes off her clothes and joins them in the shower, that should be of no concern whatsoever. Right?

And don't say something stupid like that won't happen.
"

That happened last month in Washington state. A man walked into the women's locker room at a swim club and stripped naked in front of women and girls. They tried to have him removed, but the authorities refused because he claimed he was a woman.

I've heard the argument that this will happen anyway so there's no point in making laws. 1) Why make it easier for the flashers and peepers, 2) by that logic, we should abolish all laws.

Sorry, I'll never believe in the existence of 'lady testicles'.

A cis man in women's clothing was arrested for video recording women in the bathroom, not for being there. In Seattle or Olympia, if he leaves his camera in his purse he can hang out in a women's locker room ogling women and little girls all day long - and do it naked if he wants. And since asking someone about their gender identity is prohibited, there's not a thing anyone can do about it. If someone did question him all he'd have to say is he identifies as a woman. Do you think he'd have any problem with that?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html

But hey, no one's forcing women and girls to use locker rooms. They can choose to never go there anymore. They might not want to anyway if the Middle Eastern refugees coming to the U.S. are anything like the ones in Germany and Sweden.

Artemis: "I think this whole issue would go away if we just started implementing single stall bathrooms that anyone can use."

I think that's a logical suggestion.

The man who stripped down in Washington was a cis-gendered (i.e., not trans) man and opponent of the accommodation law, pulling a STUNT to make a point. He wasn't arrested because no one called the police. The Human Rights Commission then made it clear that he broke the law:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article62763847.html

You can't arbitrarily decide, under this type of legislation, that you're a lady "just for now." (See the link.) And you can absolutely be questioned by staff.

Conan, the shelter where Hambrook committed his crimes was NOT enforcing Toby's Law. The assaults occurred five months before before Toby's Law was enacted. The Fred Victor Women's Housing Center has been inclusive of trans women for years without incident and still is! (And Toby's Law does not apply to urban homeless shelters, a technicality, but I mention it because they COULD make their own rules and do background checks. They were not strong-armed!)

My point about a male shelter is that a man of any identity can assault other men, just like a man could conceivably assault boys in a locker room. Actually, that's where Jerry Sandusky did his work.

But let's pretend Toby's Law rights were the reason Hambrook got access. (They weren't. I'm pretending.) His right to drive a car also may have contributed to his getting access. You seem to be saying that it's okay to deny any right as long as it decrements, however negligibly, the risk of sexual assault. One serial rapist (who absolutely could have been identified with a cursory background check during his extended stay--so please stop inventing narrative) committed assault, falsely assumed a trans identity, and for this one-in-a-zillion possibility, real trans people should be denied very reasonable access that doesn't treat them as subhuman?

I don't think you apply that logic anywhere else.

I wish people would just be honest and say "I have a visceral reaction to these people and/or a contrarian nature that makes me disinclined to give anyone special treatment," and not pretend this is about protecting women and children.

As for desegregation vs majority rule in 1960s Alabama: The inaugural promise of Gov. George Wallace was "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And he was elected. I am calling that majority rule.

"I think this whole issue would go away if we just started implementing single stall bathrooms that anyone can use."

There's a reason we don't use those, aside from space. A small private room, with thick walls and door, that can be locked, with no witnesses in it? They were recipes for push-in assaults, robberies, and rapes. Open, public restrooms were found to be safer. But by all means, let's NOT look at the reason we do things a certain way, and just change it all up for the most minute section of society there is.

I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Therefore, I demand full access to female locker rooms.

And who the heck are you, Amy, or the NYT editorial board, to say otherwise?

[Patrick:] You don't have a right to determine your own gender. The idea is ridiculous. There is no right to determine what you were born with.

+100

Careful with that joke, Jeff. It's an antique!

Once entering a women's room is not a hindering misdemeanor, pervs can forge ahead and commit all the felonies they've saved up!

Insufficient Poison:

It's new to me. With sufficient whimpering, does that count for any points?

It's actually hilarious the first time, so yes. :)

48 comments so far (not counting mine).

Are there even 48 transgendered people in any one city (excluding LA, DC, Hollywood, and Miami)?

Why do you people care?

Why should a parent of a young child/teenager or even a senior person have to accommodate this need?

Just because? How are the transgendered hurt by dealing w/this issue?

If you look like a woman/man who the hell would know the difference? What's the need for a law?

There probably was no need to ever have a law in either direction. People were handling this just fine without government intervention.

The commingling has occurred for years without incident, but recently the city of Charlotte, NC, felt the need to pass an ordinance guaranteeing trans accommodation in public facilities (among several other things), and the NC state government responded with a spectacular knee-jerk move (as mentioned by Conan): they passed a countermanding bill that /prohibits/ local laws that enforce public accommodation. The new law requires everyone to use the bathroom of the sex on their birth certificate.

This has caused an uproar because it forces people who look very much like women to use the men's room, and vice-versa. (And that is when people are most likely to get hurt. Imagine a person in lipstick and heels in a men's room.)

Georgia tried to do the same but backtracked under pressure from businesses. I think South Carolina, Mississippi, and a handful of other states are weighing their options. I am not up to date on those.

What I have written above is a simplification. You can follow Amy's link and read the op ed, or just do a Google news search.

Wow, you are so wrong about this. When the NY Times did this story in the fall someone in the comments linked to a site that has detailed accounts of predators claiming to be women to get into bathrooms. One story was particularly horrific. A 55 year old woman was using the restroom at a local bar when a man came in behind her. She said, "This is the ladies room, you don't belong here." This six foot something, 200 lb plus man sucker punched her in the mouth and left her sprawled out on the floor. He did $50,000 worth of dental damage to her mouth and broke her eye socket. He then proceeded to claim victim status saying, "(S)he felt threatened by her words and HAD to defend himself." He is awaiting trial and is asking for the state (i.e. you the taxpayer) to pay for his sex change operation.

They had several of these stories on that site. I just can't remember it off hand. I have since heard of other stories of women being followed into dressing rooms and filmed. Thanks selfie stick!

If you think the most predatory, deviant individuals won't make use of this law you are seriously deluded. I would also ask what experiences in your life have led you to believe that people, especially criminals, will use the laws as written and intended? I want to live in that world. It sounds really pretty and nice. I bet everyone gets a unicorn and nobody ever gets their feelings hurt.

Jeff Guin: "I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Therefore, I demand full access to female locker rooms."

If you live in Washington you can have it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227562/Colleen-Francis-Outrage-transgendered-woman-permitted-use-college-womens-locker-room-exposing-himself.html

You seem to be saying.... ~ Insufficient Poison

No. I'm not.

I've already said I disagree with the law as passed and with the way in which it was passed. I'm also saying the concerns expressed by the proponents of the law deserve a fair hearing and respectful consideration

I'm saying the opponents of the law who automatically assign ignorant or homophobic or transphobic (or any other phobic) motives to the proponents of the law are wrong to do so, and do their cause a disservice by doing so.

I'm saying sexual behavior discrimination is not directly comparable to racial discrimination and comparing the "bathroom law" to Jim Crow is apples-to-oranges. And no, I'm not advocating either.

I'm saying the implementation of Jim Crow was done by the government and, though it followed a cultural norm, business owners who didn't care if black people ate at their lunch counter or used their restrooms were not given a choice; their freedom of association was abridged by the government.

I'm saying those people who say sexual predators won't use the law to gain access to victims are wrong. They will use it - as they will use any advantage they can.

While I'm not 100% on board with the whole nonsurgical transgender identity thing, I do sympathize with someone who has a psychological need to be someone or something else. I also sympathize with someone who doesn't want their 8-year-old daughter using a public restroom or locker room alongside a 40-year-old with a penis, no matter 40-year-old's the gender identity.

Sheep Mom, I'm going resist the temptation to be as sarcastic with you as you have been with me.

The story you just described isn't about a "predator" in a bathroom. It took place in 1997. The woman (then age 40) kicked open the door to Patrick Hagan's bathroom stall in order to confront him, a man in a dress. Hagan was a convicted felon with a history of violence, and he responded violently (as he would have outside a bathroom).

To reiterate: Partsch sought confrontation and kicked his stall door open. He punched her in the face. He is not awaiting sentencing. He was convicted in 1999.

(It's funny to me that Hagan did exactly what Internet chest thumpers say they'd do if they caught a man with a penis entering a restroom with their daughter.)

What experience in my life leads me to think criminals will follow laws? Absolutely none, which is why laws enforcing the birth certificate rule are pointless. The only people it's going to hurt are trans people who just want to pee but are afraid of being humiliated.

It is a myth that under trans accommodation any guy can simply announce he's "identifying female" today and stroll into the ladies' room unchecked, and police have to throw up their hands. Pervs who want to sneak in and ogle women will find a way to do it anyway. There are already laws against it.

Why don't you lay off the incredulity shtick and the common sense fallacy and make a real argument instead? You could, for example, Google the stories you're citing.

Here is additional insight into the Colleen Frances situation:

http://www.transadvocate.com/colleen-francis-and-the-infamous-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm

Which litter box may this kitten use?

Transgendered cats: a sign of the alpaca lips!

It is going to be Interesting watching the leftists heads explode over this. In the war between special snowflake women, who seem to worry about nothing other than being raped, and the transgendered, who want to proclaim their sexual identity as one of the girls by using the womens's restroom, who is the more important victim?

I suspect the resolution is going to be Sharia, and a lot of men, and women peeing in the bushes.
And Gym class, and multi sex athletic facilities are a goner.

Portapotties, and hand sanitizer for all!!

I have been friends with one transgendered individual. I don't know about all of them, but John/Lindsay was clearly mentally ill, and the sex change wasn't going to solve any of his problems.

Probably why they have an astronomical,suicide rate. They really don't like themselves, and changing the plumbing does nothing to remedy that.

That is all they are changing by the way. The idea that you can change your sex lacks any scientific basis. It is a biological and genetic impossibility.

"It is going to be Interesting watching the leftists heads explode over this. In the war between special snowflake women, who seem to worry about nothing other than being raped, and the transgendered, who want to proclaim their sexual identity as one of the girls by using the womens's restroom, who is the more important victim?"

I do wonder what will happen when trans women surpass biological women at certain tasks, and take jobs and accolades away. Applaud their success or cry oppression?

I have a trans daughter. She's in her 20s, and doesn't do anything to appear female. She is only out to a few people, so it's not an issue for her yet. I'm grateful she is 6'6" and strong, so when she does live freely she is less likely to be a victim, as so many trans people are

She is not mentally ill, not confused, not stressed about who she is. She is brilliant, funny and kind. The only reasons she's not "out" is because she knows her 90+ year old grandpa would probably have a hard time with it, and she just doesn't care. Like she said, she's comfortable in jeans and t-shirts. Why would she suddenly want to wear dresses and heels? It's just ignorant to assume all trans people are just attention seekers.

She is fine using the men's room, and that works since she doesn't try to look female. She really is androgenous looking, but being so tall no one assumes female. If she wanted to dress in a girly way, though, I know she'd be much safer in the ladies room.

But hey, my child should totally risk being beaten to death because one man, two years ago in Toronto, assaulted women in a bedroom after lying about being trans.

I really wonder about the people who insist these assaults will take place. What kind of people assume everyone's a molestor just waiting for a chance? A polite molestor, though, who will wait for a law to....what? Give them legal permission to be somewhere to perform a much more illegal act?

If trans people make you uncomfortable, just say so and put away the bullshit excuses.

"But hey, my child should totally risk being beaten to death because one man, two years ago in Toronto, assaulted women in a bedroom after lying about being trans"

Not a significant risk.

And the crazy part, if she ever gets there, is believing that a biological man can turn themselves into a woman, and that the change will somehow make them happier.

You are still a deformed biological man who has cut off some parts. You will never be a woman. That is a biological fact.

You are also subjecting yourself to dangerous levels of hormones, which will mostly likely shorten your life span, and cause a host of other medical problems.

Another question, why does anyone, gay,straight, trans or hermaphrodite feel the need to *come out* to anyone?

It is attention seeking behavior whether you want to admit it or not.

We all love our children, but what they do in their bedrooms and with whom is of absolutely zero interest to me.

Thankfully, they are not interested in my sexual identity or proclivities either.

Last I checked, beating someone to death for any reason is a felony in every state.

What is going to be tough to police is the pretend transvestite sitting in a stall in busy ladies room, with a go pro attached to his shoe.

"Probably why they have an astronomical suicide rate. They really don't like themselves, and changing the plumbing does nothing to remedy that. That is all they are changing by the way. The idea that you can change your sex lacks any scientific basis. It is a biological and genetic impossibility."

Odd that you would put that that way. What is shown is that people are engaging surgeons to make their body conform to supremely powerful mental images. It's not just a buncha guys wishing they had Amy's... err... equipment list, luxury options and all.

Again, if you look up Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and Johns Hopkins findings on the subject, you will see that thousands of Americans have marked, documented, physical differences, some of which have merited surgery on infants in the scant hope of providing a life without the alienation guaranteed by the condition.

You may wish to say something about there not being a "gay gene"; that's OK, because there is no single "hetero gene" either. There isn't a driving environmental force guiding the evolution of mankind away from having a fraction of indeterminate and/or incompletely realized gender, either, because survival doesn't depend on its resolution.

"What is going to be tough to police is the pretend transvestite sitting in a stall in busy ladies room, with a go pro attached to his shoe. "

Or the crossdressing pimp who puts heroin on the toilet paper and instantly gets you hooked and drags you away to a life of sexual slavery.

F'n scary world, lemme tell ya.

I think that Conan is right. There are a lot of women who are genuinely afraid to allow men in women's restrooms and changing areas. They're not 'transphobes', they're worried that non-transexual men will exploit the opportunity to leer at women and potentially assault them.

Maybe that's irrational, but it's not the same as hating transexuals.

Or the crossdressing pimp who puts heroin on the toilet paper and instantly gets you hooked and drags you away to a life of sexual slavery.

F'n scary world, lemme tell ya.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 18, 2016 7:12 PM

I'm not particularly afraid of this, or cameras in the bathrooms.

Japan actually instituted women only cars on the subways to keep women from being grouped.
Can't imagine what it would be like if they didn't have sex segregated restrooms, and the men had a feeble excuse for being in there.

I've spent thirty days without indoor plumbing before. There are a lot of good reasons to stay out of public restrooms. I'm not Barbara Strisand germaphobic, but they are one of the better places to pick up a rhinovirus.

Most child predators identify as heterosexual males

Most CONVICTED, research shows women commit the majority of all abuse against children

Personally I think it is a shame this discussion was shut down by SJWs.

While I have no doubt some of these people are experiencing a biological chimera type condition whereby some of their brain or endocrine systems do have oppositly sexed cells, statistically speaking it is literally impossible for all of them to be.

Meaning some of these folks are suffering from a possibly treatable mental disorder.

Meaning we are condeming people to suffer needlessly so as to not be burdened with an uncomfortable conversation.

And that is unconscionable.

I really wish more people, especially outliers from the norm like transgendered, gay, celebate, or even people with things like dylexia or synthesasia would donate the bodies, or at the very least their brains to scientific research

Insufficient Poison: "Why don't you lay off the incredulity shtick and the common sense fallacy and make a real argument instead? You could, for example, Google the stories you're citing."

Why bother? If someone even went as far as posting the links here you would ignore them anyway. From what I've read here, I don't think you're capable of understanding an argument from another point of view anyway.

Transgender male-to-female are not women. They are men, even if they dress in women's clothes, act like women, feel like women, use female pronouns and really really want to be women, they're still men.

If a man dresses, acts, feels and wants to be like a woman, I think that's kind of unusual, but I really don't care. I go out of my way to be respectful of their sensitivities, accommodate them and make them as comfortable as I can, just as I do for anyone else - cis, trans, fluid, gay, lesbian, bi or whatever - to at least the extent that they're willing to go out of their way to accommodate the vastly greater number of people everywhere they go whose values and sensitivities are similar to mine.

Most women don't want strange men undressing in their or their daughters' presence, and don't want to be seen by men while undressed. It causes them to have significant distress. If trans people get the notion that their discomfort from not being able to use anatomically incongruent locker rooms and showers somehow outweighs or invalidates the distress and discomfort of the vastly greater number of cis, bi and lesbian women who don't want men - trans, cis, fluid, gay, bi or whatever - to be in locker rooms and showers, naked or otherwise, while they and their daughters are using them... they're wrong; I don't respect that notion at all.

The minuscule number of transgender people are not better or more valuable, and their rights and comfort are not more important, than the vastly greater number of other people. I think society needs to move in the direction of accommodating trans people in a way that doesn't increase the discomfort of others. But if they're going to work to have their values and preferences forced on everyone else, then I'm not going to have any qualm about supporting people working to have my values and preferences forced on them.

Insufficient Poison: "I do wonder what will happen when trans women surpass biological women at certain tasks, and take jobs and accolades away. Applaud their success or cry oppression?"

Over the past 20 years I've worked alongside of, done business with, taken care of and in other ways associated with dozens of transgender people. When they've excelled in their work they've been given the credit that's due, same as straight, gay, bi and lesbian people. I've never ever heard a single person express any disagreement with that. I guess it's that whole "racial narrative of White" thing that values such "tools of racist white supremacy" as hard work, honesty and outcomes over things like process, relationships, sexual orientation or gender identity. But if I had to name any one group that stands out as far as the quality of their work and outcomes, I'd have to say it's gay men.

"Transgender male-to-female are not women. They are men, even if they dress in women's clothes, act like women, feel like women, use female pronouns and really really want to be women, they're still men."

I'll play this game. How much surgery do you personally require of someone?

You can't use what you don't have.

I suspect you haven't noticed how far surgery can go. Few people do because the subject is "icky".

"The minuscule number of transgender people are not better or more valuable, and their rights and comfort are not more important, than the vastly greater number of other people."

Ken R's post states it simply enough that any ignoring the logic do not CARE about either party.

They have AGENDAS to push.

from WashPost article today:

"I used the female restroom in high school because many people knew me as female and I didn’t want to cause disruptions. I ended up facing opposition anyway, as my outward appearance was male."

I'm supposed to tell my 7 year old niece "It's okay Honey. He identifies as a male."

Right.

I pick my niece/Mother/Grandmother's POV about comfort over someone whose outward appearance is male.

Sorry cupcake. Sometimes you have to be concerned about other people's feelings.

If you live in Washington you can have it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227562/Colleen-Francis-Outrage-transgendered-woman-permitted-use-college-womens-locker-room-exposing-himself.html

I envy Winston Smith. All he had to do was say that 2 + 2 = 5. I'm supposed to believe that penises and testicles are female genitalia if a man says so.

Now the Olympics are allowing intact males to compete as females. Check out a picture of the Iranian 'Womens' soccer team - it's 8 burly men and two girls.

If you live in Washington you can have it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227562/Colleen-Francis-Outrage-transgendered-woman-permitted-use-college-womens-locker-room-exposing-himself.html

I envy Winston Smith. All he had to do was say that 2 + 2 = 5. I'm supposed to believe that penises and testicles are female genitalia if a man says so.

Now the Olympics are allowing intact males to compete as females. Check out a picture of the Iranian 'Womens' soccer team - it's 8 burly men and two girls.

Ken R: "Why bother? If someone even went as far as posting the links here you would ignore them anyway. From what I've read here, I don't think you're capable of understanding an argument from another point of view anyway."

What kind of flouncy little pre-recorded rant is that? It's not pertinent to me.

Did you miss that I independently looked up Sheep Mom's story--based on keywords in her misinformed account--and located the actual news story? She had most of it wrong. She didn't bother to look up the example SHE cited. And neither did any of you.

How about the /news/ link I posted above that debunked the narrative of the Washington man, identified him as a protester pulling a protest stunt, and contained a letter from the governing agency stating that he broke the law? That person (who also failed to look it up) had it wrong.

How about my correction of Conan's narrative, with research on Toby's Law and the shelter in question, which still welcomes trans women on its web page even though it doesn't have to? He had it wrong.

What links have I ignored?

I've politely engaged numerous people on this topic who posted blatantly, lazily, *factually* false information--or stories that they fleshed out themselves using scenario fulfillment--and who had no moral problem doing so. As usual, I'm one of the scarce few actually contributing information to a debate on this forum vs jerking off into a mirror.

I understand the opposite viewpoint quite well, and it is based in emotion, not statistical reality. Creating invasive laws to reduce the risk of something to 0 is not something we do anywhere else, and is ordinarily what people on this forum argue AGAINST--for example, if the government can't spy on us, that probably means a few extra criminals get away, but most of you consider than an acceptable risk because you place individual liberty at a premium and don't want to intrude upon the 99.99% of people who are doing nothing wrong. You probably would defend a number of disturbing messages as free speech, because free speech that causes DISCOMFORT without causing HARM is something we tolerate. We have many freedoms where the liberty of an individual is placed above the "comfort" of others.

I have challenged this "affect heuristic" with multiple other examples. The number of trans people *is* smaller than the number of non-trans people, but /overwhelmingly/ larger than the number of people who have suffered bathroom assaults stemming from accommodation legislation. On the other hand, the risk to trans people's safety is significant if they use a restroom where they appear not to belong.

Why do you keep emphasizing the 0.03% number? Do you understand the concept of individual liberty? That we sometimes spend millions of dollars to give one idiot a fair trial? And this particular accommodation costs nothing.

The shower/locker room scene that everyone keeps freaking out over is not happening. Trans people want to blend in. Even in that one-off Colleen Francis story that everyone keeps waving like a flag (see my link above), Frances was in a closed-off steam room in an area where the teenage girls in question were not supposed to be. They peeked through the window in the door. She was not lounging around with her legs splayed in a common area, daring people to question her. People aren't doing that because no one likes to be treated as the object of abject horror in a community where they are recognized.

"Cousin Dave, do you have any trans friends? You sound like my dad. You think these people are living this way for attention, even though it's the worst kind of attention. "

And you sound like the leftist high school teacher who flunked me without grading my term paper, because I had the temerity to disagree with him on something. Clearly you didn't read a word I said. The comparison to ending segregation is a red herring. Black men were not claiming that they had a right to share a locker room with white (or otherwise) women.

Genitals matter. It's biology 101 and you can't get around it. If they didn't, there would not be two sexes.

And as for whether I have any trans friends: maybe I do and maybe I don't. It's none of your goddam business.

No, I actually read your term paper! Here's what it said:

"And since no one else has dared to say it, I will: You know why this is all happening? Because the Left loves being transgressive and shocking. They're cackling with glee at how much they've upset everyone..... If I'm in a rest room and some cross dresser comes in obviously wanting to get noticed in an "I'm invading your space, ha ha ha" way, I'm going to be all "Good afternoon, nice day outside isn't it." I'm not giving them the satisfaction."

So I summarized you aptly when I said you believe they're doing it for attention. You share information about your personal life on here all the time--like that awesome story about your professor--but asking if you have ANY personal interaction with the people you're impugning is going too far?

The comparison between transgender bathroom accommodation and desegregation in the 1960s is absolutely valid, specifically because of the argument that a non-transgender person feels "uncomfortable" with a transgender person using the same bathroom. This is the same argument that was once made of black people using public bathrooms, intermingling on public transportation, public drinking fountains, etc.

In both cases integration presented no HARM--and you could make the argument that everyone had EQUAL access to facilities, just not in a way that dignified them--but the public's irrational discomfort still won out for some time, and in both cases integration eventually was (or will be) forced in places where the majority was against it. (Example: Alabama, where segregation was a regional social custom, and I already explained how I defined "majority.")

Civil liberties outweigh the "comfort" of others and public opinion.

How about my correction of Conan's narrative, with research on Toby's Law and the shelter in question, which still welcomes trans women on its web page even though it doesn't have to? He had it wrong. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 19, 2016 7:15 AM

Wrong? A distinction without a difference, there IP.

Even if Toby's Act was passed in 2012 after Hambrook assaulted two women in two separate shelters, he still gained access to the women's areas by claiming to be a transgendered woman. And was allowed to enter in accordance with existing Ontario law at that time.

Even if Hambrook didn't use Toby's Law to gain access, he still used the existing Ontario and Toronto law to gain access to a pool of potential victims. Ontario law in effect at that time enabled, "any man who claims to be a transgender woman ... the legal right to use women-only facilities with impunity." According to the Toronto Sun, that was "a right enshrined in law for 15 years and reinforced in 2012 by 'Toby’s Law.'"

Hambrook had already been staying at the Fred Victor shelter for over a month, having checked in as "Jessica," a transgendered woman, when he sexually assaulted a deaf woman in the shelter and spied on another woman in the shower. And those are only the acts the government can prove.

So, while you want to dismiss the entire story because the Toby's Law timeline was in error, the reality is that making it possible for a serial rapist like Hambrook to enter through a legal loophole what are supposed to be a safe spaces for women is endangering the women in those spaces.

You sound like Barbara Hall, the willfully blind head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who insisted, even in light of Hambrook's rampage and guilty plea that, "We have never seen a documented case of a heterosexual man gaining access to a woman’s change room by posing as transgender."

Civil liberties outweigh the "comfort" of others and public opinion. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 19, 2016 8:01 AM

That's why we allow people to walk down public streets naked - 'cause the civil liberties of nudists outweigh the "comfort" of others and public opinion.

That's why we allow polygamy - 'cause the civil liberties of polygamists outweigh the "comfort" of others and public opinion.

You don't get to do anything you want just because you invoke "civil liberties." The "comfort" of others and public opinion play a large role in the establishment of the body of laws that govern a society.

Judicial review exists to ensure that the body of laws don't trample without just cause the basic rights of minorities, not that those minorities are made comfortable and are able to do anything they wish.

> The comparison between transgender
> bathroom accommodation and desegregation
> in the 1960s is absolutely valid,
> specifically because of the argument
> that a non-transgender person feels
> "uncomfortable" with a transgender
> person using the same bathroom.

That's so fucked up. Skin color isn't an interior condition.



Y'know, identity politics doesn't represent some flowering of sensitivity to other's troubles, but is rather a rampaging infection of childlike pomposity, a debilitation of human nature into which any of us may at any time regress. And you done did.

Plus, you're just being a dickhead. If you want to be extra-sensitive to transgenders —or anyone else's 'comfort'— you should do so in your own life, and thus lead by the power of your shining example.

Within the blustery springtime breezes of my own loving heart, I've always felt like a very tall but clumsy and ugly man. Of course, in real life, I'm of moderate height but as graceful as an elk, and just stunningly beautiful to look at.

But what accommodation have you motherfuckers made for my perception of what my life is like?

Bupkis. None whatsoever.

This is how I know you're full of shit. You don't want to spend your own life dealing with the lunacies of others, you just want to use policy to pretend to be compassionate, as if we wouldn't otherwise be able to guess what you're all about.

It's just all fucked up.



PS— I really am gorgeous.

Yes, Amy, the North Carolina bathroom thing is about what people say it is.

Your offhand arrogance about the topic itself is instructive about this discourse.

Conan, he didn't rely on any law. 1) Public accommodation laws do not govern urban shelters, and 2)it was, is, and has long been the policy of THAT shelter to *welcome* trans women. Their choice, because in their considerable experience, it's not a problem.

You stated that the law prevented them from doing a background check because that was illegal discrimination, and that they gave him quarter because of the law--i.e., they were not allowed to exercise their own discretion and their hands were tied. You also said there wasn't time for a background check. None of that appears to be correct, and it constitutes embellishment of your argument in order to make a point.

The shelter screwed up.

Why did Barbara Hall deny this incident? I don't know. Maybe she didn't know. Or maybe because it's a disingenuous objection that doesn't match the popular narrative. This man entered a facility that made its own rules, should have faced a background check because these are living arrangements with prolonged interaction vs a bathroom or locker room environment, and should have been thrown out immediately on the basis of being a convicted sex offender--not on the basis of being trans.

Hambrook's previous partners were men, and he changed his story repeatedly throughout police questioning. He has offended against men, children, and women. He should not have been outside a jail, period, and it seems extremely likely he would have done the exact same thing in a men's shelter, since he tried to do it in a men's prison. (Also from the Toronto Star.)

This occurrence is a "distinction without a difference." "Never" vs. "statistically negligible." You don't deny an entire group of people rights because one criminally insane person abused a rule, a guy who had clearly found other avenues in the past.

"But what accommodation have you motherfuckers made for my perception of what my life is like?"

For starters, I read that meandering, e.e. cummings word vomit.

"Trans people want to blend in."

If that were true, you wouldn't see a six foot two guy wearing makeup, high heels, and a dress in the women's restroom.

They would be wearing unisex clothing, and using the men's restroom, so as not to call attention to themselves.

How many women do you even see wearing dresses these days?

So why do seperate changing and toilet rooms exist?

Is it to prevent glimpsing/hearing/thinking about opposite sex genitals?

Or is to hang out with people who we have social commonalities with?

Conan, he didn't rely on any law.

He relied on the existing Ontario law and public policy that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

He showed up at a shelter in 2011, claimed to be a transgendered woman named Jessica, and was granted access to areas in which women (transgendered or otherwise) were supposed to feel (and be) safe. Using his legally-mandated entry, he then spied on and attacked women at that shelter. And again at another shelter.

When you mandate that anyone, solely on the basis of a stated claim, should be granted entry to restricted areas, then you're going to have people abuse that allowance for nefarious purposes.

No one here is opining that transgendered people will gain access to women's restrooms and attack women. The concern being expressed is that non-transgendered men will claim to be transgendered women and gain access to women's spaces with less-than-savory intentions - just like Hambrook did in 2012.

And, in response to this, you're blathering on about Canadian law and 1960's discrimination and civil liberties trumping personal safety concerns and whether anyone here actually knows any transgendered people.

Why do you keep emphasizing the 0.03% number? Do you understand the concept of individual liberty? That we sometimes spend millions of dollars to give one idiot a fair trial? And this particular accommodation costs nothing. ~ Insufficient Poison at April 19, 2016 7:15 AM

Public law does not have to accommodate a small number of people whose belief, practices, or customs are harmful to or not consistent with the public welfare.

How many nudists walk down the streets of major American cities (outside of San Francisco where they were only recently banned)? Things that are more distasteful than actually harmful can be and have been legitimately excluded from the public arena.

And this particular accommodation has foreseeable harmful side effects.

You would have the entirety of US society altered to accommodate an estimated 0.3% (not 0.03%) of the population. Where reasonable accommodation can be made, it generally is (e.g., the Amish). Where it cannot, it is not (e.g., public nudity).

The question being debated is whether allowing anatomical men into a women's room is reasonable given the potential harm such allowances could inflict when abused by the types that tend to abuse such laws (people like Hambrook). It's a worthwhile debate to have.

"Keep your minds open, but not so open that your brains fall out." ~ Professor Walter Kotschnig (1940)

"Is it to prevent glimpsing/hearing/thinking about opposite sex genitals? Or is to hang out with people who we have social commonalities with?"

Good question. I think the answer is a little of both. First of all, genitals matter. When you mix nude men and nude women in a space, there's generally an expectation that sex will occur or might occur, or at the least the participants will look at each other in a sexual manner. Some people might not want the opposite sex looking at them in a sexual manner in that particular venue. Some parents don't want their children looking at the genitals of people of the opposite sex at that time, in that manner. Or they might not want adults of the opposite sex looking at their nude children.

There's also the fact that when you remove your clothing, you are leaving yourself vulnerable in both a psychological and physical sense. When you feel vulnerable, you seek safety. And in this regard, that means being in a place where others seem less threatening because they have something in common with you. In rest rooms and locker rooms, it's genitals, the particular rituals associated with making use of them for elimination, hygiene, etc. Plus, I think that regarding certain bodily functions, there's certain things that men and women just don't want to think about in regard to the opposite sex.

(You ask at this point: "What about gays?" Well, gays just aren't a big enough part of the population to be an issue. And I think most of them are aware that they are receiving somewhat of a privilege, and so it pays to be cool about it.)

And there is something to the cultural thing. There's a definite culture in the men's locker room. I admit that I have not spent a lot of time hanging out in women's locker rooms, but I suspect there is a definite culture there too, and it's a lot different from the one in the men's room.

If we start dividing up restroom preferences into what sex a person is, what sex they'd like to be, what surgery they've had or not had, what their sexual preferences are, etc., pretty soon we're going to wind up requiring that every facility have about 20 different restrooms and locker rooms, most of which will seldom be used. Add to that that all of them have to have handicap accommodations and baby changing stations. And then there's the re-segregation movement, which, once that door is cracked open, will probably start demanding separate facilities for people of their ethnic group. Someone has to clean all of these rooms and keep all of the plumbing in order.

It's just not feasible. If the law tries to impose that, pretty soon we'll all be peeing in the bushes.

> e.e. cummings word vomit.

Nonresponsive but snotty. And I think that's kind of a sad commentary on the state of our world today.

"He relied on the existing Ontario law and public policy that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity."

I've explained twice why this is not so. The shelter was not governed by the public accommodation law, even the one that preceded Toby's Law.

"And, in response to this, you're blathering on about Canadian law and 1960's discrimination and civil liberties trumping personal safety concerns and whether anyone here actually knows any transgendered people."

That is a gallimaufry of several distinct counterarguments I have made, each completely stripped away from its original context. I asked Dave (only) if he knew any trans people because of his depiction of a transvestite in a bathroom. No one else.

I will stop "blathering" if you stop hysterically caterwauling. (Unless you're not caterwauling. What a cheap debate tactic on my part!)

"It's a worthwhile debate to have."

Aren't I having it? Conan: "It needs to be debated, so stop arguing the other side!"

It's not actually debatable to you, or you'd be considering the big picture: available data from 12 states in the last 15 years. Not perseverating on an anecdote that has many extenuating circumstances, and concluding that it indicates a) foreseeable harm in public bathrooms and b) foreseeable harm to an extent that freedom should be restricted.

Your position is equivalent to saying that literally any risk is unacceptable, and you will include risk that would exist even without the accommodation. That is not a reasonable position.

You have repeatedly disagreed that this has anything in common with segregation of black people to accommodate public sensibilities of yesterday, but you instead compare it with bans on public nudity. Denying trans accommodation has more in common with the former (technically equal but with separation that unnecessarily demeans some) because rules against public nudity are at least equitably applied.

"Keep your minds open, but not so open that your brains fall out." ~ Professor Walter Kotschnig (1940)

Doesn't sound like you think this is debatable.

"Nonresponsive but snotty. And I think that's kind of a sad commentary on the state of our world today."

You called your detractors arrogant dickheads and yourself the embodiment of an elk. Were you interested in a serious discourse? Sorry.

"...pretty soon we're going to wind up requiring that every facility have about 20 different restrooms and locker rooms, most of which will seldom be used. Add to that that all of them have to have handicap accommodations and baby changing stations. And then there's the re-segregation movement, which, once that door is cracked open, will probably start demanding separate facilities for people of their ethnic group. Someone has to clean all of these rooms and keep all of the plumbing in order...."

This has happened in Rhode Island already. Basically all physical structures are now restrooms.

What's even more ludicrously ominous than a slippery slope fallacy? Slippery slalom?

Well, yes. But from any commenter here or on the internet, I want evidence that you intend something besides flattering yourself.

Shermer's gentle about it here, but I see no need for courtesy: The instantaneous and brittle recourse to postures and contexts from civil rights battles in which you took no part makes you seem needy and chickenhearted, not compassionate and forward-thinking.

I like to be blunt about it.




(Cammy covers this too. Love that woman, love her like crazy.)

It's a Title IX requirement. Requiring them to use a unisex bathroom is a BAD thing. Aren't we special.

“At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity,” the court’s opinion said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/federal-appeals-court-sides-with-trangender-teen-says-bathroom-case-can-go-forward/2016/04/19/6a873b88-f76b-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

Aren't I having it? Conan: "It needs to be debated, so stop arguing the other side!"

Not really, no. You keep trying to shut down any debate by equating opponents of your position to racial segregationists of the past - even though valid arguments have been advanced that the two situations are not equal. You don't answer those arguments, you just keep repeating ad nauseam that they're equal and your opponents are equivalent to racists. Oh and you invoke civil liberties without an understanding that societal norms have rightly trumped individual preferences in the past (and will again).

And, Poison, public nudity is, in fact, a closer analogy to this case than racism.

Oh, and Canadian homeless shelters were governed by Canadian law. Unless you think shelters in Toronto were governed by US law or French law. Hambrook was entitled under existing Ontario law to enter the Fred Victor women's shelter in Toronto as "Jessica."

The Toronto Sun said in 2014 in coverage of Hambrook's crimes and Toby's law, "Any man who claims to be a transgender woman has the legal right to use women-only facilities with impunity. ...a right enshrined in law for 15 years...."). That "15 years" includes Hambrook's 2011-2012 deceptions.

Even if he was admitted because the shelter policy allowed it, rather than because Ontario law mandated it, what makes you think the outcome would have been different? What makes you think encoding this entitlement into US law would avert such tragedies? You're advocating taking a policy which resulted in disaster and enshrining it into law.

Your position is equivalent to saying that literally any risk is unacceptable, and you will include risk that would exist even without the accommodation. That is not a reasonable position.

No, I'm saying that if the government is going to take risks with citizens' lives and comfort, it owes them a thorough consideration of those risks and not just the appeasement of a politically active subculture that represents 0.3% of the overall population. It also owes its citizens an explanation of how those risks will be mitigated. The Charlotte (and Ontario) laws contained no such mitigation of risks.

Oh, and I don't caterwaul.

The funny thing, Poison, is that I'm not even in favor of the NC law (as it was written and enacted) and I'm defending it against you. Think what that says about how unreasonable your arguments must be, that someone who would nominally be on your side thinks you're full of crap.

I think a reasonable law can be written that accommodates the concerns of both sides, but it can't be written if the transgender activists reflexively call their opponents bigots and phobics and insist on an all-access pass with no provisions for security. Both sides owe the other side a respectful debate.

This thread has 95+ responses and you're as big a quagmire as Artemis/Orion and his endless inanity. I've said my piece.

Crid, I love Shermer and this piece, but these are two separate conversations.

Well, maybe not.

In this column he's talking about political correctness being a threat to free speech, which it most certainly is. Shermer says you might have to get your moral emotions hurt, because other people's right to express themselves is essential and paramount. You don't have a right to feel coddled. He wants to protect the most offensive speakers imaginable--as do I--and if their words devastate you, then you can exit that public place.

To me this is absolutely in line with letting transgender people pee in the "wrong" restroom.

I see the people wailing about moral offense and danger as being the disingenuous ones, causing trouble and checking dicks for no reason, except to signal to the world that THEY are defenders of ladies' dignity. Oh, and by the way, they have no tolerance for special cases, even if the request is benign. Damn it, they will dig up examples where it was NOT benign and present it as a likelihood. THERE'S your crusaderism.

If trans people were asking for special toilet paper, or a glittery sticker, or personal body guards, I would say eff that. But in this case, they just want to use the restroom of the sex they outwardly resemble, a restroom that already exists. (And by the way, they've been doing this for years.)

And North Carolina suddenly has to legislate specifically against it. The howling activism occurred on the right this time.

Liberal crusaderism is ridiculous. Trigger warnings , "cultural appropriation," checking your privilege, and political correctness are all forms of bullying and policing others into obeying an increasingly granular and BS code of conduct. But it's not morally right to "even the score" by saying a niche group can't continue to do something reasonable, that we're going out of our way to BLOCK that. With a brand-new LAW.

My stake in this is that I'm a moralist and I like to argue. I have a trans friend who's already nervous to exist, and she can't enter a men's room looking the way she does (like Winona Ryder, despite having been born a man). If I wanted props for my beneficent open-mindedness, I wouldn't be debating under a pseudonym.

> I have a trans friend who's already
> nervous to exist

Darlings so delicate exceed the scope of State protection, or perhaps even public courtesy.

But as noted above (though ignored), I think your concern is self-regarding and erratically contextual. Else what's it like to move through the world worrying about other people's interior lives with such precious, theatrical, obliging sincerity?

Duzzenmadder... it's not possible. You don't. Get outta here, ya big galoot.




"...nervous to exist...."

Also, you used the word "identify" in that reprehensible, teenage way. GTFO

In that response to you? I don't think I used the word at all.

But this is why I didn't bother to answer you the first time.

An elk? Have you actually heard one of those bugle? You'll pee on yourself, it's so silly next to the visual strength of that critter.

"PS— I really am gorgeous. I understand, and this explains a lot.

...gallimaufry... IP wins a point for showing a word I had not seen.

"No one here is opining that transgendered people will gain access to women's restrooms and attack women. The concern being expressed is that non-transgendered men will claim to be transgendered women and gain access to women's spaces with less-than-savory intentions - just like Hambrook did in 2012."

The North Carolina law does not change this at all! Claims at the scene notwithstanding, assaulting another person has never been legal, regardless of the venue.
The concern being expressed is properly noted as the forced commingling of genders in restroom facilities.

Why is this about the tiny fraction of people who look different from their gender, anyway? If you look like a guy, I'm not inspecting your junk to see if you really are one.

I'm going to be out in the bushes, where your teen daughter is not going to be. Where all of us will be to avoid accusations of sexual assault for our simple proximity!

People please! It's been decided by Obama just like everything else (decree).

"“At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity,” the court’s opinion said. “We conclude that the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation . . . as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is . . . to be accorded controlling weight in this case.”"

School bathrooms/locker rooms must follow gender identity. Done deal. (May need more safe rooms.)

There's a piece to be written about those who think the locution "identify as" portends a flattering, carefree selection of agreeable lifestyle choices versus those who hear in those words a brusque, perhaps violent inspection of coat lapels for the Star of David.

Which response describes a better perspective of the threats to comity?

It's not about transgendered in the bathrooms--it's about pedophiles in locker rooms with little girls changing out of wet swimsuits.

"...nervous to exist...."

Then she needs counseling, not a bathroom pass.

"Then she needs counseling, not a bathroom pass."

She needs and has both (unless she visits North Carolina prior to this law being overturned).

"Oh, and I don't caterwaul."

Oh, and I wasn't blathering.

I did not say detractors were equivalent to racists, but that the logical fallacies being applied in both situations were equivalent. YOU are projecting a literal comparison because that is easier for you to argue. (One is about skin color and the other is internalized self-identity. Yes, good job! It's still pre-emptive oppression based on irrational fears and personal discomfort, shielded by a disingenuous claim that accommodations already are equivalent.

You think no one cited safety concerns when faced with integration? No one could muster an anecdote or two and play the "If even one child is saved" card?

But the real "freedom over safety" laws I was thinking of involve the second amendment. Maybe I'm not "comfortable" with you carrying a gun because you /might/ do something crazy. The possibility and the existence of criminals does not wipe out your right to own a firearm. I also gave you free speech parallels, which you ignored. Do not say I haven't responded.)

Gender identity was not protected by Ontario law until 2012, per the web site of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Are you quoting from the following link at the Toronto Sun? I will guess yes, since it contains the quotes you pulled. If so, this is an opinion piece from a contributing columnist, without a citation. It is NOT a hard news article or "coverage":

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/shocking-case-proves-tobys-law-is-flawed

Can you find that pre-existing law? I tried in good faith and can't. Even if it exists, shelters are not protected social areas under accommodation law. For this reason, Toronto has published separate "shelter standards." The document explains that they /want/ you to accept trans people, but if you don't, you just need a referral plan in place.

You want your examples accepted at face value and get unpleasant when someone else checks them.

That shelter WANTS trans women and even offers a specific support group, because statistically it works out fine.

"What makes you think encoding this entitlement into US law would avert such tragedies?"

Because it's ALREADY encoded! I've said it like three times. Twelve states and 15 years of history. Law of the land throughout much of Europe too. Many states have no specific law, so trans people just use the bathroom they want. Nikki Haley just said SC doesn't need it, because the current arrangement is FINE.

We know it's not what would occur even in North Carolina, because until last month, trans people have been using their bathroom of choice. The law abruptly changes what has occurred for years.

You have not made a case that the Toronto incident--completely non representative of a typical bathroom scenario--is indicative of what would occur under bathroom accommodation. Empirical evidence shows the opposite.

"The funny thing, Poison, is that I'm not even in favor of the NC law (as it was written and enacted) and I'm defending it against you. Think what that says about how unreasonable your arguments must be, that someone who would nominally be on your side thinks you're full of crap."

Oh, *VOMIT*. Stop concern trolling. I don't care what "side" you're on; a bad argument is a bad argument.

So, going back to something NicoleK said, if this is to be the rule, why have separate men's and ladies' facilities at all? Why not one big room for everyone? How many people would be comfortable with that?

Oh, *VOMIT*. Stop concern trolling. I don't care what "side" you're on; a bad argument is a bad argument.
Insufficient Poison at April 20, 2016 9:25 AM

Other than a tiny fraction of the already tiny fraction of trans individuals who were born intersex, these people were raised using a locker room, and public restrooms of their biological sex.

What wrong with them continuing to do so until they have had reassignment surgery AND changed their birth certificate?

They might be *uncomfortable* doing so?

Well join the club, so are about eighty percent of women and girls who don't want to share a public restroom with a biological man.

In short, the restroom wars is about a small percentage of flamboyant exebitionist transgendered men, claiming that they are uncomfortable using the men's room when they are wearing a dress (please count the number of bio women you see in a dress at your nearest airport ladies rest room or sports club) and would prefer that their discomfort be given priority over the comfort of all the women who don't want them in the women's restroom.

Insufficient Poison, the problem with your arguments, as Crid is too polite to say, is that you are a blithering emotional pool of goo on this subject.

You don't seem to be willing to argue anything but the legal issues, and mistakes of fact or law in other people's arguments. Most of them only tangentially related to the point they are making.

The resemblence to the Artemis/Orion school of bloviated non sequiturs is telling.

> She needs and has both

This is so fucking pathetic. It's posturing. It's just so infantile. Again-- Who else in your life has earned such chinned-ducked, lips-pursed, silent & nurturing concern?

No one. Of course, no one. If you had to demonstrate so much empathetic sincerity for the roiling psychographic interiors of everyone you ever met, you wouldn't be able to take two steps beyond your front door without falling into a twenty-year group psychology session with passersby. (Or, perhaps,you'd have to shoot yourself in he head when you realized what others actually thought of you.) No, this is a pretense of compassion for an unremarkably troubled individual.

Now, here are the things we might safely presume about a speaker/commenter who uses "identify as" as you did:

• They've never built a business.

• They've never moved consequentially (Work! Education! Sex! Food!) through an unknown, challenging culture.

• They've never been in a hazardous circumstance where they were seriousballs responsible for the safety of other people, either by authority or teamwork.

• They've not been generous with charities (for people, not animals).

• They consume and are formed by an enormous amount of fictional media. (This probably includes Salon and CNN.)

• They've almost certainly haven't raised a family... If they did, the kids are recessive, milquetoast, torpid layabouts.

• They've cashed a lot more checks from government than they've written to it.

Right? No? Does this describe you in each of its particulars?

Tell me I'm wrong. "Identify as" isn't just a coinage, isn't just a 'tell'... "Identify as" is an ethos.

"Nervous to exist" is barely fucking ENGLISH. It certainly isn't worldly.

I sympathize with women who don't want anyone with a penis in the room when they use the facilities. But then, it's annoying to have to use a bathroom with anyone else there, period. The best answer, IMO, is to replace all multi-person public restrooms with smaller one-person ones, or at least extend the partitions to the floor and ceiling.

But if the rooms do stay as is, I would say there's some justification for the restriction -- except that it's written wrong. The rule should be that you use the room determined by whether or not you now, physically, have a penis, not whether you originally had one.

Okay. I'll say what's obvious and no one will say it.

THE LEAVE THE SEAT UP!

"The best answer, IMO, is to replace all multi-person public restrooms with smaller one-person ones, or at least extend the partitions to the floor and ceiling."

Do a little research into when accessibility social issues become government mandates.
Not only does it become extremely expensive, once the government bureaucrats form their committees and start mandating the size of the stalls, and height of the walls, and the latches on the doors.....
those public spaces that can't afford to comply will simply shut their facilities down.

For an education read up on what happened when the government started mandating that motel pools and other public pools had to be handicapped accessible.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hotels-rec-centers-try-slow-pool-access-regs

"The best answer, IMO, is to replace all multi-person public restrooms with smaller one-person ones, or at least extend the partitions to the floor and ceiling."

Also give a little thought, as to what this might entail, at a large football stadium,.....when it is half time,.......at the Super Bowl.

And then think of the beer sales. Why won't anyone think of the beer sales!!?!

But seriously, changing every restroom in the nation would be very expensive.

Mostly I'm tired of people who've never done anything grand in their lives (including the 'rock stars' and theatrical types) demanding that others be oh-so-sensitive to the needs of people they want nothing to do with anyway.

And yes, the glib comments along the lines of Yes, we should just have individual bathrooms from here on out are part of this. Practicalities seem never to be considered.

We've known since the start of this century that American character isn't a sturdy as we might have hoped. 2016 was the years we found out that a huge percentage of Americans are not, in any useful sense, awake. They're dreaming their way through civilization.

I mean, it's like Americans suddenly have five more layers of television mentality baked into (what we used to call) their conscious minds... Five more levels of presumption that everyone is pandering to you like in commercials, and that every episode will happily end with Chuck Norris killing a bad guy or Jennifer Aniston getting laid or whatever. Total Dreamville.

Is there a new opiate that we aren't talking about?

Is this the Facebook thing, where people only consider their news sources in the pandering spirit of a TV commercial? "Likes," and all that?

How could such naive people be convinced that they're morally exemplary?

Wouldn't their first encounter with a waitress in a coffee shop be the pinprick that brought them back to reality?

Thirty seconds on Twitter just now convinced me that the cocoon of self-selected media is what this is about.

I think other people enjoy having their media be soft 'n fluffy the way I liked it with broken glass edges.

The items, specifically, were:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27127/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547291/Sweden-s-deputy-PM-sparks-outcry-describing-9-11-Twin-Towers-attack-September-11-accidents.html

WTF

Why look! Here's another example of what I'm talking about, right here in this selfsame thread!

(I didn't read all the comments, because life is short: I was picking on "Insufficient Poison" sort of randomly, because that was where my computer "mouse" landed at first glance, and he was saying something stupid. There are almost certainly other stupid comments on this computer "web page," and if Google's disk cache survives, these binary lunacies will reward the historians of tomorrow just as the slave trader's quill & ledgers inform the historians of today. Onward!——)

> I think this whole issue would
> go away if we just started
> implementing single stall
> bathrooms that anyone can use.

Got that? The "whole issue" can, and presumably should, be made to "go away." M'kay? There are people who think the distinctions of sexuality are distractions, mere annoyances, and they can be eliminated.

It amuses me that this insight comes from a commenter who has, for so many months on this blog (years, now?) proudly —almost viciously— declined to affirm gender affiliation, no matter what the topic... Such that if you said eroticism had no influence on Artemis' character whatsoever, I would believe you. This person says the most extreme distinctions between human beings (be made to) "go away."

Let's keep reading!

> if we just started

Two parts to consider there. Well, maybe seven or thirty, but this is a blog comment, not a doctoral thesis.

First, "if we." Now, I will sincerely welcome any argument on this point, but I'm pretty sure that "if we" is silently amended, both in the intention of the author and the ear of the listener, to include by force of law and regulation. No suggestion is made that this is a matter of persuasion. Rhetoric is not a factor. Religion is not a factor. Tradition is not a factor. The opinions of those in the bathrooms is not a factor. And of course, sexuality is irrelevant. These are the words of a person who wants to make shit happen administratively, and do with the words "if we."

Now consider: "started." That was the next word. Listen, this blog is a low-pressure context, okay? No one's putting words in anyone else's mouth. Artemis said that if "we" merely "started" to do something, the problem would go away.

This is not wordplay. These are the fantasies that come to this person when thinking freely.

But consider the next word!:

> if we just started
> implementing single stall
> bathrooms

What comes to your mind when you read the word 'implementation'? Is it something tender, patient, warm and welcome? Or is it something cold, crisp, procedural and indiscriminate?

...And as noted above by myself and others, these thoughts are repeatedly presented as if "single stall bathrooms" were an acceptable (or even workable) expense for people building (or even working in) public buildings.

(There was a "leave the seat up" joke back there, too. Are women sure they want to use individual public toilets used by, presumably, every man on the planet? Seriously? You're not kidding?)

Someone... Please... I'm begging you. Explain to me how the Artemises and Insufficient Poisons of the world came to think of themselves as such broadly-sighted, deeply compassionate human beings...

...Because from the things the say, we could presume they were living from ages one to thirty in Skinner boxes.

Also, extrapolate! Election-year America is full of fuckers like this!

I'm pretty reactionary on this issue, I confess. There are a couple concerns I have.

Namely 1) The modesty issue, and 2) I am not sure we are ready for a complete upheaval of gender norms.

So, first off we have the problem where "woman" now means different things to different people. For most of history it meant, "Human of the gestating sex", and now it is starting to mean, "Human who feels more comfortable in the societal role historically attributed to the gestating sex". If we want to make the switch to the latter, fine, but then we need a new word meaning "Human of the gestating sex". Because there are still situations, mostly medical, in which your plumbing matters.

I don't think pervs claiming to be women to be peeping Toms or rapists will be a huge problem. I'm sure some will, but by in large peeping Toms are probably not a huge segment of the population.

My concerns are more subtle. Particularly now that States are moving away from "Post Op" as female, and now allowing anyone who "Feels like a woman" to identify as a woman.

The first is that after toilets, locker rooms follow. The reason we have separate locker rooms is not so we can hang out with the same sex, but to avoid seeing and being seen by the opposite sex in a state of undress. Historically, that has been considered immodest.

While I personally don't care if I am changing in a room with a dude, as I don't see it as a sexual thing, I realize that many women do not feel that way. I'm not ready to call women "haters" because they are modest, and don't want to see a penis when they step out of the shower.

Also, I have a five-year-old, who I'd happily send into a locker room alone to change... not sure I'd be comfortable if there were post-pubescent guys in there. I realize that is sexist and women can molest, too, but I think it isn't just about molestation, it's about not being comfortable being observed by the opposite sex in a state of undress. I realize many kids are very self-conscious about that. I wouldn't mind if I were there, somehow, but I'd be uncomfortable letting her in alone.

The other issues is there are many areas in our culture where there are separate rules for men and women. We can argue whether or not this should be the case, but currently it is right now.

For example, physical jobs such as the military, sports, and firefighters. There are separate standards for men and women. If people who are biologically male but "feel" like women want to join, do they get held to the lower standards? Currently, in sports, to compete as a woman you have to have been on hormones for a certain length of time... if woman is being redefined as a feeling, and not a set of physical characteristics, the natural conclusion is they will have to let the people who feel like woman be held to the female standards. And I think it would mean we could say goodbye to the possibility of all but a very few born women being able to hold those jobs.

Maybe that's ok. Maybe we think women shouldn't be holding those jobs to begin with unless they meet the male standards. But that's a whole discussion that needs to be talked about, and I am afraid it will just get swept along in the name of "equality", and actually make things less equal for born women.

This will certainly do away with Title IX and similar laws. So we need to be having a conversation about whether or not we think those laws were necessary. If society becomes truly gender neutral, what will the end result be? Is it something we want? It might be. But can we maybe think it through?

The other thing that worries me is if woman is a "feeling" or a set of social norms, what does it mean if women don't feel whatever this mysterious feeling is, do we have to be redefined as men?

I think, if we continue to have sex segregated spaces, laws, norms, we need a working definition of "man" and "woman" (with the understanding that a small percentage of the population will be intersex). It can't just be a "feeling"

Can college guys use this to get out of rape charges? They were exploring their feminine side.

I think the Title IX thing is a done deal. Not sure what happened to the public comment period I thought was required. (Hard to believe our MSM did not notice this proposed change.)

Kinda hoping Mothers would be pushing HRC on this issue since it's such a sexually charged issue. I guess all of those soccer moms are too busy.

Basically I am surprised that the phone lines are heating up at the political offices. Parents of small children, senior citizens,and others "not comfortable" with this surely out-number the singles/non-parents/coastal people.

SheezusFuckballs, here's some more evidence that siloing/customized media is the problem.

A couple years ago, Pinker wrote a book affirming that literacy made the world more peaceful, because it allowed people to imagine the lives of others in an intimate way.

Facebook, by offering such an inexpensively customized reading experience, may have the opposite effect, accelerating the forces of isolation from other contexts.

Etc.

"Insufficient Poison, the problem with your arguments, as Crid is too polite to say..."

Gentility being his hallmark.

"...is that you are a blithering emotional pool of goo on this subject."

"You don't seem to be willing to argue anything but the legal issues, and mistakes of fact or law in other people's arguments..."

How are you reconciling THOSE two statements? I'm also invoking stats and history. Already the law of the land in most places in the U.S., including North Carolina until recently. This issue just drew attention to it. This is government intervention for no good reason, where there was no problem.

Your opinion is based on a scenario with the most lurid caricature of a man flapping his dick around young girls--or else some guy pulling a Bosom Buddies to leer at girls--which can already happen in a lot of non-bathroom circumstances now and already is illegal. (To quote gun activists: Criminals don't obey the law.) But this, you say, makes it SLIGHTLY more possible. That imaginary predator gets one more minute before someone can scream. (And yes, he can be confronted AND his identity challenged, and staff gets to make a call and throw him out and have him arrested--already posted that info above.)

The problem with your viewpoint--and Crid's--is that you can't evaluate the issue critically and separate it from your visceral contempt for liberal political correctness. Based on /my/ opinion on this one issue, Crid has lumped me in with the Millennial "safe space" crowd and is now shaking his fist, shouting at the special snowflakes to stay off his lawn.

I haven't been on this site in quite a while, true, but surely he knows better from my previous writing. Well, maybe not, since he referred to me as a male above, and in previous interactions he definitely knew I was a chick. But it's BINARY to him. (Crid: "Like gender." Saved you some time.) In Crid's worldview, if you think "they" have a reasonable point, then you're one of "them." They can't have "their way," or it's an icy slope.

When you angrily, outright reject any request for accommodation because you can't stand the thought of people being special, you're just the right-wing version of politically correct.

"Someone... Please... I'm begging you. Explain to me how the Artemises and Insufficient Poisons of the world came to think of themselves as such broadly-sighted, deeply compassionate human beings..."

You're thinking of someone else, Crid. A strawman you like to dress up when you're alone, because you get lonely with no one to patronize. I want to leave people alone who aren't bothering anyone. (And we know we weren't bothering anyone because they've used whatever facilities they wanted for years, and no one in NC noticed.)

You've expressed compassion for various people during your ranting tenure. I could just as easily ask who appointed you the guardian of women's sensibilities, and are the women you know vegetables who can't handle themselves if something goes down in a bathroom. (Which it doesn't, because it's a fucking bathroom.) You picked an interesting time to put on white armor.

My friend C. is nervous to exist because in any social or employment relationship, she dreads an eventual need to explain that she was a man for the first 20-something years of her life, and sometimes the reaction is disgust followed by rejection. Sometimes she can avoid it, but not always. Or people just find out. Some of her old friends don't accept what she's done and want her to "change back." She looks unmistakably female--you would never know--and she could not enter a men's room without causing a stir, whereas she uses the women's room without incident. If I ask the question "What bathroom should she use?" the HONEST answer from folks like you is that she shouldn't have transitioned in the first place, or she should stay the fuck home, or that it's not your problem.

NicoleK, that deserves a thoughtful response. I'll try to give one today.

> Based on /my/ opinion on this
> one issue, Crid has lumped me
> in with the Millennial "safe
> space" crowd

C'mon, Sugarbun, consider what you've chosen to share with us.

You really said "identify as" in the manner depicted. No one painted you into a rhetorical corner or anything, you just think that's a fabulous place to stand.

As an expression of your tenderhearted magnificence for this friend of yours, you affirmed that he/she (and you presumably excpect us to know/care which) was "nervous to exist." This wording isn't fit for grade school.

> If I ask the question "What
> bathroom should she use?" the
> HONEST answer from folks like
> you is that she shouldn't have
> transitioned in the first place,
> or she should stay the fuck home,
> or that it's not your problem.

True! But your capitalization is clumsy and pompous, as is your faux-intimate concern for such a vanishingly small subset of the population in matters of sexual comity. I just don't think you're that kind, or that bright.

And for fuck's sake, who on this planet remembers other things you've written here?

"Nervous to exist!"

"[P]erving in bathrooms is already illegal," says Amy.

"And for fuck's sake, who on this planet remembers other things you've written here?"

Not you, Crid. You've already forgotten what YOU wrote yesterday.

Naw, I'm all about coherence. Years, decades even... I get it right and then live it forever.

Tell me again why we're supposed to be so intimately concerned for your friends "dreads."

Take a bus, buy a burger, fly a kite at the river: Do you seriously contend that other people moving around you don't have troubles and burdens in their lives which are every bit as poignant? How can you —in your singularly munificent (if clumsily phrased) compassion— ignore their burdens so blithely? Because I'm pretty sure that's how it is with others. And you. I'm pretty sure that you aren't walking around with remarkable insights about the proper handling of other people's sorrows.

And we, your American fellows, tire of your presumption. We tire of being told that allowances must be made for distant, minuscule minorities for whom you claim to speak, whatever their distance from your own life or your own intimacy.

"You don't seem to be willing to argue anything but the legal issues, and mistakes of fact or law in other people's arguments..."

How are you reconciling THOSE two statements? I'm also invoking stats and history. Already the law of the land in most places in the U.S., including North Carolina until recently. This issue just drew attention to it. This is government intervention for no good reason, where there was no problem."

Quite easily my dear. In lawyerly speak we call,your arguments, "pounding the table" because they are not on point.
There is no constitutional right to bathroom use or to be classified as a protected class based on your chosen sexual *identity*
Therefore your Second amendment analogy was a particularly poor argument, among many others.

Quite frankly it sounds like a lot of regurgitated drivel from various SJW web sites.

The state of North Carolina does not want biological genetic men, with penises, using women's restrooms.
Subject to a review by the Supreme Court, they are wholly within their rights to pass such a law.

I might feel a little bit of sympathy for a six foot two transsexual in a Christian Dior dress and a 500 dollar custom hair style feeling nervous about using the men's restroom,(mostly because I believe them to be mentally ill) but at the same time realize that their visibility problems are A. Self created and B. Easily remedied by getting their head out of their flamboyant exibitionist ass, and blending in.

Fortunately, in this country there is no constitutional right not be be stared at, whether you are Dennis Rodman dressed in drag, or a 500 pound whale with purple hair driving one of those motorized scooters around Walmart.

Neither is there a right to be *comfortable* although the SJW crowd is working hard to create that one out of whole cloth,

In short I believe transexuals to be as worthy of government policy action protecting their bathroom *rights* as a naked hooker at a stag party.

"Neither is there a right to be *comfortable* although the SJW crowd is working hard to create that one out of whole cloth,"

RIGHT. We have no right to be "comfortable." Maybe I don't feel "comfortable" with a creepy looking guy giggling in my metro car. (Maybe 50 others in the car don't.) Or with some chick breastfeeding in front of me. Or with protesters outside an abortion clinic. That's my problem.

Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell suggests to me that the Court will decide in favor of trans accommodation, but I also think NC will repeal the law on their own.

I don't hang out on SJW web sites, but you continue to demonstrate that, in your eyes, everything is "us or them."

To me the people screaming that they need binary sex identification in order to feel "comfortable" in bathrooms are like the gay people who felt harmed by not getting the wedding cake they wanted. Tough.

To be clearer, as I should have been: Private businesses should be able to discriminate however they want. If that makes you uncomfortable, tough.

The government and its facilities should not discriminate. If that makes you uncomfortable, also tough.

> Private businesses should be able
> to discriminate however they want.
> If that makes you uncomfortable,
> tough.

Okay, so a if a black woman is "uncomfortable" because a landlord won't rent her an apartment even though she's got the money in hand, that's "tough." Right?

Amy did this too... Scratched and fought (inanely) over gay marriage for ten years... Only to opine, days after Obergefell, that businesses were under no obligation to honor those unions.

These are the things that begat the 11:24 AM comment above. Exactly how much of the world have you seen? Ever cross a state line? Ever visit a courtroom? Ever read more than five pages of text about conflict between any opposing forces throughout human history?

Because nervously to exist, uncomfortable, tough.

Worked since age 14 and supported myself since age 17. I have traveled the world and lived in five countries, including the third world.

What else was on your checklist?

I'm an executive in STEM for a large company. I do not own the business I helped build, and I don't have kids. I'm in the 1% and we pay more in taxes annually than many Americans paid for their homes.

I have read ONLY five pages of text, and I am unaware of any previous conflicts in human history. Can you provide an outline?

No, I wanna know how a life of such breadth, attachment and integration can decay into coinages like "identify as" and "nervous to exist." A person with such refined patterns of goofdom musta missed some lessons somewhere.

Crid, re "identify as," are you mixing me up with one of many others who used this term?

I didn't use it in the context of identifying with a different gender. I used it in reference to child molesters who abuse same-sex children but who publicly have heterosexual relationships with adult women.

"Most child predators identify as heterosexual males, and they already have "access" (by detractor logic) to children in their own restroom under existing law."

Anyway, turn the record over.

Naw, you're busted, and you just don't like it. No one with the life experience you describe would use the language of children for such things.

IP, Crid is just mad because you used "gallimaufry" in a sentence. It was a challenge, you see.

Just repeating that the few who can't blend in aren't at as much risk as we older guys, who will now be unable to use a public bathroom without being subject to sexual assault charges when some teen - ever so responsible! - flips out.

Why is it no surprise that you're so charmed with a spot of French?

See? Mad.

Been years since I was surprised, and then by, "pecksniffian".

?

Raddy, your coherence fades at the goddamndest times