@catahoula :
In your last post, you keep using the term orientation or preference interchangeably, and that is a problem. A preference implies choice, orientation indicates something that is not a choice. The religious right and other bigots for years answered the same sex marriage thing by saying that same sex people could get married, to an opposite sex person, as if it was that easy.Even the idea you put out there, that if someone has a same sex encounter early or is abused or has trauma, has been promoted as the reason people ‘choose’ same sex partners, the religious right is still promoting the idea that children of gay parents will ‘learn’ to be gay, and there are places in this country where gay teachers can be fired with the justification “they will corrupt the kids into being gay”.
Even assuming that some people shift their preference in partners to be same sex because of abuse, that doesn’t mean necessarily that sexual orientation is mutable, given how few people who are abused who end up being gay, it is more likely that they had the ability to be attracted to either, but ended up going one way or the other because of the abuse, they were oriented bisexual but were swayed into going with same sex partners because of abuse (and yes, that does happen.)…and even assuming some people are swayed by abuse let’s say, does that mean therefore everyone is? More importantly, even assuming it was a choice of some sort, why should others be allowed to marginilize them because of they don’t like it? That is like saying women shouldn’t be in the military or be engineers because according to belief, those aren’t ‘fit for women’ to hold. It isn’t much of a testament to the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the one of the ways LGBT people achieve equality is having to prove it is biological because of what some bronze age wrote in a book or because of people’s prejudice. We protect religious belief, which is totally a choice, so why should someone’s sexuality or gender identity or fluidity be reigned in by other’s prejudice?
“My question was serious. A person with male genitalia may not ‘dress as a woman’. Maybe he’s wearing sweats to the gym… Women and men both wear sweats. The spa or gym may have no idea how he identifies himself. How would they know whether the individual is transgender, a male cross dresser or a male peeping tom?”
How do they know a woman entering the locker room isn’t gay and loves to look at other women nude? They don’t, but if a woman went into the locker room and did things that were inappropriate, she would be flagged for it. As I wrote in my prior post, a transgender women going into a gym or spa is likely either full time, or near to going full time, the reason they are going into the women ‘s locker room or spa or whatnot is because they are too uncomfortable to go to the men’s facilities any more, people don’t just decide one day "I am a woman, I’ll use the women’s facilities’, they use them because they no longer can safely use the male ones. Once someone has been on hormones after a while, it gets to be very, very difficult to pass fully as a man, and especially when changing and whatnot, will not pass muster in a men’s locker room, and that alone tells you the commitment. For one thing, someone questioning their gender identity would be too scared to go into a women’s locker room, and if they were dressing as a man what would be the point? Again, the idea of being in the restroom where they are comfortable is likely only going to apply to transgender women who already are full time and/or are close to it, where they can’t go safely into a men’s room. As far as the argument about having a penis disqualifying them, the reality is that transgender women are likely to be a lot more self conscious about their genitals than those complaining about it on here.
A male crossdresser going into a locker room? Highly unlikely, crossdressers are a different beast, and why would they want to go into a locker room dressed like that? I can see a crossdresser out at night using a woman’s restroom, but a locker room or spa? That is really stretching it.
The reality is if a man in a suit walks into a locker room or restroom, they can be asked to leave and the law will not find the gym liable under the law. If the person claims they are transgender and went in there like that, then if they wish to file a complaint, be my guest, it is likely that whoever decides would give them the advice to wait until they were actually down the path more…but I doubt that sincerely. The man in a woman’s locker room is nothing but code for people wanting to exclude transgender women who they think are transgender (I would love to see what would happen if a very masculine appearing woman got flagged by some idiot as being a ‘male in the locker room’ and how that woman would react), the whole smokescreen about abuse, the man in a suit, those jumping back and forth is basically bogus.
Tatin–I’m going to hope that common sense and some sense of propriety will prevail so this won’t ever be a problem.
If a transgender guy or female shows up in your bathroom you probably would never know (they’ve already been there) because they “fit in”. Nobody is appointed the bathroom police. Nobody is parading around naked. Nobody will be checking birth certificates. Or has yet anyway. Heaven help the “protester” who lands on a viral youtube video.
If someone parades around naked uninvited in ANY circumstance then their rudeness will be censored by those around them in some way. Alcohol excluded. Heaven forbid we need laws to cover every circumstance.
As for the “inbetweens” --undergoing transition–(is there a word? Educate me)–it’s a problem which I know the law is supposed to help but I don’t see how it does to any great extent presently without providing restrooms which are “co-ed” and provide privacy . Again, I’m an advocate for privacy for EVERYONE.
Not the same by a long shot but parents have been dealing with bathroom issues for like–ever. Thank goodness finally someone with sense advocated for “family restrooms”. About time. Could use some more… Both restrooms and common sense. I’m sure society will figure this issue out too without having to litigate every detail.
To be clear, I am not concerned about restrooms at all vis-a-vis transgenders. There is little to no nudity there.
I would venture a guess that there are more voyeurs (if that’s the right word) in this country that male to female transgenders. (I saw a stat that the latter were .5% of the population, half a percent). So how does a place where women expect privacy while nude, like a locker room, keep out the voyeurs BEFORE the privacy is invaded? Ask to see driver’s license?
These are practical issues that have not been addressed.
Well how have they ever kept out the voyeurs? Some drill holes in walls or install video cameras. And some might just walk right in for a glance or hide behind a shower curtain. Practically speaking there will always be people like this. When they are caught you do what you need to do and enforce the laws we already have. Ask Erin Andrews.
What is this obsession with the idea that trans women are going to be “parading around nude” in women’s locker rooms?! I don’t totally understand gender dysmorphia, but I’m trying to educate myself. But even I comprehend that a trans woman, who completely identifies as a woman, would absolutely NOT want to display her male genitalia! That would completely negate the whole “presenting as a woman” thing they are trying to achieve, would it not?
Are people just making up stuff, grasping at any possible fear tactic to justify forcing trans women to use men’s locker rooms, where they would be at risk for physical violence?
@gouf78:
The real issue with transgender bathrooms has little to nothing to do with nudity, and it certainly has nothing to do with men going into restrooms as voyeurs and claiming to be transgender. The reason for the bathroom and access laws is mostly about the transgender women who may be easy to spot as being transgender, who are bigger than most women, have masculine appearing faces, who otherwise can’t go ‘stealth’. The funny part is, many of those squawking about transgender women showing their genitals in women’s locker rooms is that it is not unlikely that there have been transgender women in facilities with them, but didn’t notice because the person fit in, and many of them might well not have had gender surgery, and I don’t understand where the problem would happen here. Do they think that with the law, suddenly these hordes of transgender women will come into the locker room and flash their genitals around? If transgender women already are using women’s facilities, and are discreet, why would that change?
The reality of all this is they don’t feel uncomfortable with the transgender women they came into contact with because they pass as women, and the reality of life is women squawk about transgender women in the locker room or bathroom, not because they see someone’s genitals, not because they behaved inappropriately, but simply because they recognized them as transgendered and freaked out. And want to know a dirty little not so secret? Transgender women post SRS have been denied access to women’s rooms and locker rooms, because they “looked wrong”, so the whole thing about changing documents and genitals is a lie in real life, the reason the bathroom issue and the locker room issue comes about is some women get totally freaked out with transgender women they know are transgender from their looks, and see them as “men”. If a friend of mine walked into the women’s room or the locker room of a gym, they wouldn’t give her a second glance, she is about 5’ 4, blond hair, blue eyes, absolutely gorgeous woman; if anolther person I know, who is 6’ 2 and is not quite as feminine looking, went in there, someone would be a lot more likely to complain, again because they see transgender women as men. If passable transgender women have been going into locker rooms for years (no one runs a chromosome test on women going into restrooms, no one looks under their clothing), then how come women have not seen a woman with male genitals before…and the answer is simple, that the transgender women they saw were discreet, and there is no suggestion that less passable transgender women would be any less discreet, so what is the fuss? The only logical conclusion is the freak out isn’t about seeing genitals, it is about women they recognize as transgender…and that is why the bathroom laws were passed in the first place, to protect those who are identified as transgender from being harassed by women who are uncomfortable around them.
“Are people just making up stuff, grasping at any possible fear tactic to justify forcing trans women to use men’s locker rooms, where they would be at risk for physical violence?”
Yep, because LBGTQ people are icky.
We have mass shootings and constant gun violence against innocent people coming out the wazoo - yet this is what has their panties all in a twist about to “protect the children.”
Although, I never said it was settled. I said I believe it will be decided on those grounds. Overall, this seems to be going down the road of “be careful what you wish for.”
It does boggle the mind that the article understands that a women has the “right to privacy” to do what she wants with her body and get an abortion, but no concurrent “right to privacy” on whom sees her body? Makes no sense. When did the female lose control over and to whom her naked body is presented? Therefore, having an abortion is controlled by the female, but who sees her nude is not part of her bodily control. OK… So where is the line? Is it 2 feet , 3 feet, 2 inches, across the room, where the female attains her right to bodily privacy or is that right to bodily privacy only attained upon touching?
As for the article thinking that privacy, as established by Roe v. Wade, is not relevant here, do people enter a locker room and similar places thinking that someone they are not expecting and do not want seeing them is in there? I enter a men’s locker room knowing full well men will see me. And women the same for their locker room.
The narrative now that we have been all entering locker rooms, bathrooms etc. with no expectations is making up a false history of our behavior. The very fact that when a man or woman entered the opposite sex locker room or area in the past (and 99% still even today), they turned and left, often in haste, is very telling. Why is one leaving if not respecting some implicit right to bodily privacy that the opposite sex might be nude or in stages of undress and does not want to be seen by the opposite sex and did not consent to be seen by the opposite sex? I say people leave for this very implicit right to bodily privacy reason, as no one automatically left a room we knew was populated with fully clothed males or females.
@Nrdsb4 First of all this post isn’t meant to be rude, I just thought I’d explain what gender dysphoria is so you have a better understanding of it.
Imagine that tomorrow you woke up tomorrow in a cis man’s body (assuming you’re a woman - sorry if that’s incorrect). You try telling people, “I’m a girl” but no one believes you. People say things like “How may I help you sir” and refer to you as a “he”. And when you look at your body it doesn’t match what you think a woman’s body should look like. When you’re going the bathroom you see a penis instead of a vagina. Wouldn’t you feel uncomfortable and wouldn’t you want to change your body so you could look like the gender you know you are?
That’s just a small fraction of what gender dysphoria is and how it affects trans people every day of their lives (sometimes even after they transition).
As with most issues, there’s no “solution” to this problem that perfectly balances all competing interests, even when you exclude as valid interests rooted in bigotry. Outside of paranoia, however, it seems clear to me that the so-called “risks” of inclusive bathroom policies are far outweighed by the ethical need to respect transgender people.
I’ll freely and unashamedly admit it: I would be uncomfortable seeing someone who was obviously biologically male in a ladies restroom, and more so in a locker room. I also believe that it is inappropriate for someone to expose opposite-sex genitalia in a locker room. While, as others have said, trans people are extremely unlikely to “parade” themselves naked around a locker room, given that every group of people includes some real jerks, I think it is likely that the occasional trans or non-binary person is going to decide that they shouldn’t be expected to cover up or make any effort to pass, the comfort of those around them be darned.
Even so, I consider NC’s bill an outrage on two counts. First of all, as I and others have noted before, it is silly: since plenty of trans men are indistinguishable from biological males, I would be equally uncomfortable seeing many trans men in ladies’ rooms, which they are required to use under the law. Under the same logic, there really isn’t any more danger of predators whether there is a law or not; as long as there exists a group of people who present as a gender opposed to their biological sex – not to mention plain androgynous people – there will be people who look like men using women’s bathrooms.
Second, the possibility that I or even a young child will, very occasionally (but probably never) have to be made uncomfortable (not unsafe) in a restroom or locker room is simply not enough of a downside to outweigh the vital necessity of letting people use the bathroom that is most comfortable, most logical, and safest for them given their identity.
The mere existence of a possible downside to a position or policy is not in itself a grounds for opposing it. Most policies have a downside. The question is of whether the negatives outweigh the positives. When it comes to allowing trans people to use facilities conforming to their gender identity, it seems to me no contest.
@Snowbunny, thank you. I am currently reading the book Becoming Nicole, in which the author spends a lot of time explaining not only “gender dysmorphia,” but how it is believed this occurs in utero, or at least starts in utero. I never realized how complicated the physical and hormonal processes are which determine not only sex as determined by chromosomes and genitalia formation, but how sexual orientation and gender identity are influenced before a person is even born. It’s no wonder that people are confused about how it all works. I consider myself educated and open minded. But I confess I was pretty ignorant about this whole aspect of human development and sexuality. It most certainly does not just come down to xx and xy/male and female. And I feel pretty confident that one doesn’t “fix” this by using Christian “tough love.”
Re: Keeping out voyeurs. I was thinking of the sort of place that has an attendant at the door, a receptionist, a gatekeeper of some sort. How are they to make the distinction between a ‘real’ transgender and someone posing as a transgender just for purposes of seeing women naked?
There will no longer be the need to drill the spy holes. Just walk in.
And no, I do not think trans women should be forced to use the men’s locker room. I totally see the problems with that.
But at facilities that have an attendant showing a valid ID to enter a locker room would be a good compromise.
It’s mind boggling how people can equate bathroom access for trans with Jim Crow.
Black people are black from the day they are born-- they don’t “come out” after “years of self discovery”. The difference between male & female public bathrooms is not the “back of the bus”. Except for having urinals, feminine hygiene waste bins, & posibly makeup counters, male and female public restrooms are typically identical in quality standard.
Unlike trans people who might elect, on an ad hoc basis, to dress in gender-norm clothes matching their biological sex to avoid being harassed, black people don’t have that option.
There’s no such thing as being pulled over by a cop for Driving While Trans. White frat boys who have a ghetto-themed party are still white. Racheal Dolezal is still white. A black guy wearing socks with sandals is still black. A trans who wants a house & mortgage doesn’t have to worry about being redlined.
To equate the two issues really diminishes the experiences of black people.
I travel to japan a lot for business. One of my favorite activities there is visiting onsens (hot springs). The onsens are sex segregated. The purpose is bathing. Everyone gets totally naked and scrubs themselves in front of other totally naked people. It’s not permitted to get into the mineral baths w a bathing suit nor any clothing. I cannot imagine a trans w unaltered organs being permitted into the side he/she identifies with.
Granted, japan isn’t the USA. But the point I’m making is that no matter what the gender the trans person perceives him/herself to be, when they are standing in their birthday suits they are still their biological sex.
The point is not whether there has been or will be an epidemic of voyeur-jerks, but that now you cannot legally keep them out. There’s no legal standard to who can declare themselves to be trans.