Jump to content

PayPal bails on North Carolina


RunInRed

Recommended Posts

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

Did this predatory behavior start with the passing of any sort of legislation? We already have laws addressing sexual assault.

Hard to say. But legislation like this certainly makes it easier. How do you know if the perp is in the locker room watching women change because of voyeurism or because he/she is really a trans person? Where before someone like him would stand out like a sore thumb a lot of the time and the women could demand that he be removed, the predator can simply claim trans status and threaten lawsuits for denying "her" the right to use the locker room or restroom that they feel they identify with.

Are these serious questions? Do you really have a hard time seeing how this exacerbates a very serious problem?

What's preventing the potential perp from doing that now (prior to such legislation)?

How often has it happened?

Your argument still appears mostly hypothetical to me.

The video I asked you to watch had about 20+ cases of it all by itself. It didn't purport to be exhaustive.

Nothing prevents the perp from attempting this now. What this legislation does is give them cover for being in there and gives the women and girls whose privacy is being violated no recourse to have him removed from the locker room.

Let me ask this...how is it a smart plan to just allow someone to use the opposite sex bathroom based on their own self-described feelings and perhaps cross dressing? Does that seem reasonable to you? No more proof than, "I say so"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am not overly impressed with hypothetical scenarios.

Then you should look at the video that was linked in the quoted portion. No hypotheticals.

Most - if not all - of the (male to female) transexuals I have seen or read about look and dress completely like women and are indistinguishable from women.

I suspect that most of them have always used the women's restroom. (You would obviously notice if a woman used the men's restroom.) Likewise, the female to male transexuals look like men. And really, why should I care as a man if a transexual male is in one of the stalls. (Presumably they wouldn't use the urinals.) It just doesn't strike fear into me.

I think this is a non-issue. Frankly, I don't understand why legislation is needed to either guarantee their freedom to use whatever restroom they like or to restrict it.

Because as the video points out, this sort of predatory behavior is already happening. Not allowing places to restrict who goes into what locker room or restroom gives them cover and the problem will only get worse.

Did this predatory behavior start with the passing of any sort of legislation? We already have laws addressing sexual assault.

Hard to say. But legislation like this certainly makes it easier. How do you know if the perp is in the locker room watching women change because of voyeurism or because he/she is really a trans person? Where before someone like him would stand out like a sore thumb a lot of the time and the women could demand that he be removed, the predator can simply claim trans status and threaten lawsuits for denying "her" the right to use the locker room or restroom that they feel they identify with.

Are these serious questions? Do you really have a hard time seeing how this exacerbates a very serious problem?

What's preventing the potential perp from doing that now (prior to such legislation)?

How often has it happened?

Your argument still appears mostly hypothetical to me.

The video I asked you to watch had about 20+ cases of it all by itself. It didn't purport to be exhaustive.

Nothing prevents the perp from attempting this now. What this legislation does is give them cover for being in there and gives the women and girls whose privacy is being violated no recourse to have him removed from the locker room.

Let me ask this...how is it a smart plan to just allow someone to use the opposite sex bathroom based on their own self-described feelings and perhaps cross dressing? Does that seem reasonable to you? No more proof than, "I say so"?

Again, those 20 cases did not arise because of any legislation or policies regarding bathrooms. There are already laws against molestation or even harassment. Allowing transexuals to use the bathroom relating to their identity will not excuse them from inappropriate behavior.

The assumption being made is that all transexuals represent such a threat. That is the underlying sentiment that makes these laws offensive. Like I said, it's obvious that committed transexuals have already been using the bathroom of their choice.

IMO, this is a reactionary effort to restrict freedoms from a class of persons that don't really represent a threat beyond being different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, those 20 cases did not arise because of any legislation or policies regarding bathrooms. There are already laws against molestation or even harassment. Allowing transexuals to use the bathroom relating to their identity will not excuse them from inappropriate behavior.

But again, doing this provides a new legal excuse for the creeps to be in there. Right now in most states, if you see someone dressed as a woman that obviously is not a woman in the women's locker room or bathroom, there is recourse for getting them kicked out. They don't even have to be doing something obvious like filming. It's simply "dude with penis in wrong locker room - get out." But if you put these laws in place, that becomes way murkier. If he's in there and not doing anything obvious, do the women and girls changing in there have any right to make him get out? Can the business force him to leave or use the men's or a unisex bathroom/locker room?

The assumption being made is that all transexuals represent such a threat. That is the underlying sentiment that makes these laws offensive. Like I said, it's obvious that committed transexuals have already been using the bathroom of their choice.

No it isn't. We aren't talking about transsexuals really as it relates to this issue. We're talking about a law that gives no real objective criteria for determining who is genuinely transsexual being used by people who aren't to gain access to private areas of the opposite sex they have no business having access to.

IMO, this is a reactionary effort to restrict freedoms from a class of persons that don't really represent a threat beyond being different.

I could just as easily say that it's a sane reaction to a poorly thought out law that opens up a host of unintended (or perhaps, un-cared about) consequences. It sacrifices the privacy and safety of 99.9% of women based on the mere self-proclaimed feelings of 0.1% of the population. There has to be a better way. And to point out this bleeding obvious fact is not bigotry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption being made is that all transexuals represent such a threat.

WRONG, Titan has said several times that it opens door for actual pedophiles/predators etc... to enter the same bathroom as girls or vise versa. Not transexuals.

committed transexuals have already been using the bathroom of their choice.

Then why does their need to be a new law introduced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption being made is that all transexuals represent such a threat.

WRONG, Titan has said several times that it opens door for actual pedophiles/predators etc... to enter the same bathroom as girls or vise versa. Not transexuals.

The laws address transexuals. To conclude it will provide cover for pedophiles and predators is to equate pedophiles and predators with transexuals.

A transexual assumes the identity of the sex they relate to. By definition, a transexual wanting to use the women's restroom will look and act like a woman.

I fail to see how allowing transexuals to use the bathroom of the sex they are assuming will provide cover to pedophiles and predators, which is a completely different thing to begin with. It's a red herring.

committed transexuals have already been using the bathroom of their choice.

Then why does their need to be a new law introduced?

There doesn't. Neither law is really needed IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, those 20 cases did not arise because of any legislation or policies regarding bathrooms. There are already laws against molestation or even harassment. Allowing transexuals to use the bathroom relating to their identity will not excuse them from inappropriate behavior.

But again, doing this provides a new legal excuse for the creeps to be in there. Right now in most states, if you see someone dressed as a woman that obviously is not a woman in the women's locker room or bathroom, there is recourse for getting them kicked out. They don't even have to be doing something obvious like filming. It's simply "dude with penis in wrong locker room - get out." But if you put these laws in place, that becomes way murkier. If he's in there and not doing anything obvious, do the women and girls changing in there have any right to make him get out? Can the business force him to leave or use the men's or a unisex bathroom/locker room?

The assumption being made is that all transexuals represent such a threat. That is the underlying sentiment that makes these laws offensive. Like I said, it's obvious that committed transexuals have already been using the bathroom of their choice.

No it isn't. We aren't talking about transsexuals really as it relates to this issue. We're talking about a law that gives no real objective criteria for determining who is genuinely transsexual being used by people who aren't to gain access to private areas of the opposite sex they have no business having access to.

IMO, this is a reactionary effort to restrict freedoms from a class of persons that don't really represent a threat beyond being different.

I could just as easily say that it's a sane reaction to a poorly thought out law that opens up a host of unintended (or perhaps, un-cared about) consequences. It sacrifices the privacy and safety of 99.9% of women based on the mere self-proclaimed feelings of 0.1% of the population. There has to be a better way. And to point out this bleeding obvious fact is not bigotry.

Do you really think transexual women haven't already been using the women's restroom? How does that violate anyone's privacy or security?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a good place to put this.

Transgender people: 10 common myths

Myth #3: Letting trans people use the bathroom matching their gender identity is dangerous

Transgender people generally prefer using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, not the one that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth. But critics argue that this could expose others to sexual voyeurism and assault in bathrooms — even though there's no evidence to support this claim.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee perpetuated this myth at a 2015 convention, stating, "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'"

But as Media Matters pointed out, experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. There's not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

States-transgender-law.jpg

Media Matters

In another investigation, Media Matters also found that 17 school districts around the country with protections for trans people, which collectively cover more than 600,000 students, had no problems with harassment after implementing their policies.

Still, the myth persists — sometimes leading policymakers to pass misguided "bathroom bills" to stop trans people from using the facilities that match their gender identity. One Florida lawmaker, State Rep. Frank Artiles, told the Miami Herald the bill is necessary to prevent "sexual deviants and sexual predators" from walking into a women's bathroom or shower under the cover of the law. "A man such as myself can walk into the bathroom at LA Fitness while women are taking showers, changing, and simply walk in there," he said. "If I feel like a woman that day, I can be allowed to be in that locker room. I don't know about you, but I find that disturbing."

So not only does this myth feed into the stereotype that trans people are somehow deviant, but it can actually lead to bills and laws that discriminate against trans people. For trans advocates, disproving this myth has become a key goal as they fight bathroom bills at the state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

^^^^^ this is very confusing to me as I don't understand and maybe don't want to understand the transgender thing anyway. There just seems to be so many other ways to commit sex crimes than in a public restroom. I am not against keeping predators out, hell I don't really care if transgender people are discriminated against. It helps having more possible charges to hold and charge a suspect of a sex crime when the proof of the assault is in question.. I just don't think the actual problem has risen to the level of needed legislation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

The problem now though is that these laws give them cover. You don't know if they're what they claim to be or not. It's simply how one feels or declares themselves to be. There is no mechanism for making a judgment until after the fact. The damage has been done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

you are correct. No bathroom attendant requires a birth certificate. But I have seen it explained that you obviously can't have security cameras IN restrooms but many have them outside them. If a child goes into a restroom alone and claims she was touched or assaulted there is no proof except the video of the person who entered illegally. Which would be the only chargeable crime until a farther investigation took place. I would hope people would not call police because a manly woman went into a restroom stall and used it discreetly then left without harming anyone but they likely will. The whole thing will get ugly even for people who might appear to be a different gender. Then cops must do a ( cup check) ? Nobody really wins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

The problem now though is that these laws give them cover. You don't know if they're what they claim to be or not. It's simply how one feels or declares themselves to be. There is no mechanism for making a judgment until after the fact. The damage has been done.

You clearly don't have any experience with someone who's trans. This "cover" idea is a total myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

That's ironic for someone with your position.

And the last sentence reveals the real issue - you equate transexualism with perversion and criminality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

The problem now though is that these laws give them cover. You don't know if they're what they claim to be or not. It's simply how one feels or declares themselves to be. There is no mechanism for making a judgment until after the fact. The damage has been done.

What damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway. Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show? Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

The problem now though is that these laws give them cover. You don't know if they're what they claim to be or not. It's simply how one feels or declares themselves to be. There is no mechanism for making a judgment until after the fact. The damage has been done.

Admittedly, I don't have a tremendous amount of experience in knowing transsexuals personally. The experience that I have had with trans women (I've known three) is that all of them went to great lengths to be as "lady" as the prototypical born "lady". A pervert dressed up as a woman to go in a bathroom for the purpose of a peepshow is likely to be quickly discovered by any women in the bathroom for at least two reasons: 1. He's not going to put the dedication into his disguise that a trans woman puts into her appearance. 2. The nature of lurking in a bathroom is creepy enough to get their attention on its own. There is no legal recourse to prevent "damage from being done", aside from putting screening personnel at the entrance to the bathroom.

This is simple enough to me that it shouldn't have even warranted 6 pages of discussion here. There is no logical reason to require a trans woman to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis, especially when the sole justification for it is that some perverts might dress up as women for a peepshow. The obvious answer to that is charge those perverts with sexual assault. By forcing a trans woman to use the men's room in order to comply with the law results in the trans woman being subject to the awkward nature and potential harassment of a transsexual dolled up like a woman walking into the men's room. When you're in Jordan-Hare for a game this fall, think about the commotion that would be caused by a trans woman having to wait in line for a stall in the men's room.

The "damage" you fear will be done regardless of laws. Someone that can rationalize the concept of dressing up as a woman to get a peepshow in a bathroom or locker room is not going to be deterred by a law. Armed robbery, murder, speeding, running red lights, and DUI are all illegal too, yet they still happen. What you seek to prevent cannot be prevented without screening personnel at the bathroom entrance, and subjecting transsexuals to humiliation at best, harassment or abuse at worst. Any potential benefit is outweighed by the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this entire phenomenon of legally allowing people to use facilities of the opposite gender from which they were born is too new overall to be claiming hard evidence. And the truth of the matter is, the way these legal permissions are being written, they do basically nothing to verify in any way that a person claiming to be transgender really is, nor define what sort of legal recourse a woman who feels her privacy is being violated has. If a man claims to be transgender comes into your locker room and just lingers around frequently to get free looks at them in various states of undress, in the showers, etc., can you have him removed and prevented from being allowed in again? If he claims you are discriminating against him, is there some criteria by which you can show you aren't if he hasn't touched anyone or said anything lewd?

It's just mindboggling to me that people want to act like this wouldn't happen or that if it did it isn't a big deal.

If I was worried about being peeped on by predators and pedophiles in a bathroom or locker room, I'd be far more worried about a hidden GoPro in the ceiling than whether transsexuals can use the facilities of the gender they identify with simply because it might be abused. I expect a real transsexual is going to use a stall in any bathroom, or seek maximum privacy in a locker room. In a bathroom or locker room, someone that is in there for a peepshow is going to become obvious rather quickly. Such an individual can be confronted and dealt with. The GoPro can hide easily.

I don't really see it as one or the other. Of course be concerned about hidden cameras. But it's also completely reasonable to be concerned about a man posing as a woman, under the cover of new laws permitting him to be in there, lingering around and getting a free show. Or by him gaining access, he could be the one installing secret cameras when before it would be much harder for him to go in there and not be thrown out immediately.

Considering that there is no screening process to enter a public restroom, you're really relying upon the honor system from the outset. I get the argument about keeping a deviant man looking for a peepshow and dressed up as a woman out of the women's bathroom. However, there is no legal mechanism that can prevent that anyway.

Of course there is. If someone sees a cross-dressing man go into a women's locker room or restroom, as it stands in most states they can demand he leave or march his ass out post haste. He often never gets the chance to do what he wants. But in an environment where merely saying your transgender is enough to be considered so under the law, you can't really do that. Right now you can proactively prevent it. Under the new rules, you have to wait until it's obvious that he's just a perv.

Likewise, I don't think a trans woman should be forced to use the men's room simply because she still has a penis,

Why? Why should a 6-year old girl or a teenage girl have to change in front of, and have a man change in front of her, who has a penis?

especially when the only reason to justify it is that the aforementioned deviant would be able to dress up as a woman and abuse it. Instead of declaring who has to use what bathroom, why don't we simply prosecute such deviants for sexual assault when they commit it by using bathrooms and locker rooms as a free peep show?

We can do that. But right now the separate restrooms act as a natural deterrent. It makes it harder to get away with. This new way makes it easy to gain access and unless you give do someone more overt, you can always claim "transgender" and everyone just has to take your word for it. Under the normal rules, we realize you're really a biological man, you get out or you never get in to begin with.

Considering that it's obviously public facilities in question, would there not be witnesses in abundance? That sounds like a simpler, likely more effective, and less controversial solution to something that isn't a serious problem than requiring all trans women to use the men's room.

I find it odd that now expecting people with penises to go to the men's facilities and people with vaginas to go to the women's is the "controversial" solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titan, you have used the reasonable accommodation argument with regard to religious freedom in more than one thread devoted to the subject. I am not a Christian, or even religious, yet I agree with you in that regard. I do not believe anyone should be legally required to participate in an event, where the fundamental nature of it is something they believe is a sin. I do not think an objecting baker should be legally required to cater a gay wedding, or a photographer legally required to photograph it.

That said, apply that same argument to this situation. On one hand, you have the potential for perverts to cross dress for peepshow purposes, or children to exposed to a transsexual in the bathroom. On the other hand, you have the inevitable results of requiring a trans woman to use the men's room because she still has a penis. In the case of perverts, charge them with sexual assault. That's simple enough, and I think more likely to be effective. In the case of transsexuals, they're not looking to expose themselves to children. They're more inclined to opt for anything resembling maximum privacy in a locker room setting, or they're going to be in a stall in the bathroom. A trans woman that still has a penis is not likely to be found letting it flap in the breeze in front of a 6-year-old. The penis is something they're ashamed of, not something they wish to show off.

What is far more likely is that a trans woman that is required to use the men's room in order to comply with the law will encounter awkward situations, humiliation, harassment, and abuse. As I said in a post after the one you quoted: When you're in Jordan-Hare this fall, imagine the commotion caused by a trans woman having to wait in line for a stall in the men's room. A trans woman is definitely not going to use the urinal. I'd be willing to bet it would cause far less commotion for a trans woman to use the women's room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NC1406

Titan, you have used the reasonable accommodation argument with regard to religious freedom in more than one thread devoted to the subject. I am not a Christian, or even religious, yet I agree with you in that regard. I do not believe anyone should be legally required to participate in an event, where the fundamental nature of it is something they believe is a sin. I do not think an objecting baker should be legally required to cater a gay wedding, or a photographer legally required to photograph it.

That said, apply that same argument to this situation. On one hand, you have the potential for perverts to cross dress for peepshow purposes, or children to exposed to a transsexual in the bathroom. On the other hand, you have the inevitable results of requiring a trans woman to use the men's room because she still has a penis. In the case of perverts, charge them with sexual assault. That's simple enough, and I think more likely to be effective. In the case of transsexuals, they're not looking to expose themselves to children. They're more inclined to opt for anything resembling maximum privacy in a locker room setting, or they're going to be in a stall in the bathroom. A trans woman that still has a penis is not likely to be found letting it flap in the breeze in front of a 6-year-old. The penis is something they're ashamed of, not something they wish to show off.

What is far more likely is that a trans woman that is required to use the men's room in order to comply with the law will encounter awkward situations, humiliation, harassment, and abuse. As I said in a post after the one you quoted: When you're in Jordan-Hare this fall, imagine the commotion caused by a trans woman having to wait in line for a stall in the men's room. A trans woman is definitely not going to use the urinal. I'd be willing to bet it would cause far less commotion for a trans woman to use the women's room.

This issue really gets me fired up. Not for the reasons most claim. The city of Charlotte passed legislation that was somewhat liberal for most NC residents. The state legislature called a special session to pass legislation that overrides the local action. That's a problem in my eyes. Charlotte should be allowed to regulate or screw themselves. Same should apply for the state versus the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titan, you have used the reasonable accommodation argument with regard to religious freedom in more than one thread devoted to the subject. I am not a Christian, or even religious, yet I agree with you in that regard. I do not believe anyone should be legally required to participate in an event, where the fundamental nature of it is something they believe is a sin. I do not think an objecting baker should be legally required to cater a gay wedding, or a photographer legally required to photograph it.

That said, apply that same argument to this situation. On one hand, you have the potential for perverts to cross dress for peepshow purposes, or children to exposed to a transsexual in the bathroom. On the other hand, you have the inevitable results of requiring a trans woman to use the men's room because she still has a penis. In the case of perverts, charge them with sexual assault. That's simple enough, and I think more likely to be effective. In the case of transsexuals, they're not looking to expose themselves to children. They're more inclined to opt for anything resembling maximum privacy in a locker room setting, or they're going to be in a stall in the bathroom. A trans woman that still has a penis is not likely to be found letting it flap in the breeze in front of a 6-year-old. The penis is something they're ashamed of, not something they wish to show off.

What is far more likely is that a trans woman that is required to use the men's room in order to comply with the law will encounter awkward situations, humiliation, harassment, and abuse. As I said in a post after the one you quoted: When you're in Jordan-Hare this fall, imagine the commotion caused by a trans woman having to wait in line for a stall in the men's room. A trans woman is definitely not going to use the urinal. I'd be willing to bet it would cause far less commotion for a trans woman to use the women's room.

This issue really gets me fired up. Not for the reasons most claim. The city of Charlotte passed legislation that was somewhat liberal for most NC residents. The state legislature called a special session to pass legislation that overrides the local action. That's a problem in my eyes. Charlotte should be allowed to regulate or screw themselves. Same should apply for the state versus the federal government.

That is an issue where, by default, I would generally agree with you. However, I can understand the other side of it. If we're passing laws that dictate which bathroom a transsexual must use, it can quickly become confusing when there are different laws in every city/county in every state in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would not an acceptable compromise be to have unisex facilities available? Biological, "cisgender" men and women can use facilities specifically for them or use unisex facilities. Transgender people, regardless of whether they've had surgery to alter their genitalia use the unisex facility or the facility of their physical sex (penises go to the men's, vaginas to the women's). That way no one is surprised. If you use the unisex facility you do so with full knowledge that there may be people of the other sex in there or transgender people in there. Adjust your modesty and your expectations of other's modesty accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...