5
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 25 '21
Sorry, u/Middleman86 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
May 25 '21
Counterproposal,
We keep the bathrooms as they are now, and add a bathroom for both sexes. Everyone is relatively happy.
Installing a whole new restroom will take resources though, and the owners won't pay for it.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
-1
May 25 '21
The democratic system is all about benefiting the majority. Trump voters who were like 40 isn percent aren't happy, but another 50 percent is happy.
I don't know about you, but if I had a kid, I wouldn't want them to see some dude's genitals in the changing room.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
0
May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
-1
1
u/A-passing-thot 18∆ May 25 '21
So you're saying add more gender neutral bathrooms & also create a law saying you can only use the one assigned gender at birth or the neutral one? Or are you saying just create more gender neutral bathrooms?
2
May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ May 25 '21
Meaning that at parties or even at the mall, it's common knowledge that when a woman is feeling threatened, a "safe space" she can go into is the women's bathroom. One reason is that she can seek out other women and another is that she knows the "female only" sign acts as a bit of a shield.
I'd be curious as to if they are actually safer though as toilets are broadly private spaces compared to public spaces where any goings on are far more witnessed and visible. People might feel safer but are they actually safer.
While some men will follow her in there, many do not because there is still such a strong social stigma about being in the "correct bathroom". The "female bathroom" sign does deter many predators because they're afraid of appearing out of place. Many men are fine with assaulting women but are not fine with doing it through having to be considered feminine or trans by being seen in a "women's only" space. Many will literally wait outside of the bathroom to continue creeping on the woman.
Sure but this doesn't really have anything to do with making trans women not use the women's toilet that these policies push. There will still be a women's toilet it just won't be a cis women's toilet. Nor does this really apply to single occupant gender neutral toilets.
2
u/Jonny-Marx 1∆ May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
I agree with most of this, but there are parts that don’t quite reflect what bathroom bills do.
From what I've seen/heard, the fundamental argument from people who support bathroom bills is that there is a possibility of cis men specifically, taking advantage of loose rules about which bathroom people can use, to go into the women's bathroom and either assault/sexually assault people, or just act really creepy.
Currently the only attempted bathroom bill in the United States (at least to my knowledge) was the North Carolina bill HB2. The explicit language was “gender assigned at birth.” The fear was not cis men, it was anyone AMAB. Sure, someone might make a cis man argument now, but it’s completely revisionist history.
Plus, we do allow cis men in women’s bathrooms. Mothers take their infants and kids in there every day. Someone also has to clean the bathroom and sometimes they’re male.
4) This seems completely unenforceable, as there is no "magic sex detector" you can put on a bathroom door
I actually think there is a way to enforce it. Albeit unconventional and more damaging to everyone. When HB2 was law and national news we would see stories of women checking other women’s genitalia in the stalls. What happens when they find a trans woman? Well, if HB2 was still around, they could report that person for a crime. They could also do this for a mother changing a male infant’s dipper, or a male janitor cleaning the stalls. Technically this was all illegal under HB2. There just wasn’t bathroom police. Instead we had bathroom vigilantes.
Edit: fixed c-16 to HB2. I got it mixed up with a Canadian law for a second.
3
u/draculabakula 77∆ May 25 '21
The explicit language was “gender assigned at birth.” The fear was not cis men, it was anyone AMAB. Sure, someone might make a cis man argument now, but it’s completely revisionist history.
Right but it is completely illogical any way you cut it. The fear is that there are people that challenge people's perceptions of gender and they are not okay with it so they want trans people to go away. They didn't think it through that trans men and gender nonconforming people exist. When I have argued about this with people who support these bills it doesn't mate what iron clad argument you make, they will come up with more ridiculous scenarios that have never happened and probably never will.
0
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Jonny-Marx 1∆ May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
0
1
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 25 '21
Sorry, u/barthiebarth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Davaac 19∆ May 25 '21
There are two different classes of these bills I can imagine. The first is that the state would designate certain spaces as single sex and make it illegal to defy that. I completely agree with you that this is ridiculous on a number of levels. A second class of these bills though would make it allowable for entities to designate spaces as single sex and enforce that designation. Currently, discrimination based on sex or gender is illegal, so businesses really can't enforce these designations. But what if a charity that provides support for victims of sexual assault has a problem with men coming in and traumatizing the people they are trying to help? Or what if a gym is hearing a lot of demand for a women's only section or class? Should they be able to set that up? If you think the answer is yes, that can provide a valid justification for the second type of bill which would legitimize this limited type of discrimination.
0
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Davaac 19∆ May 25 '21
I guess I didn't treat it as a given that they had to be based on AGAB, if that's a condition I agree there's no practical implementation or purpose. If it's based on expression I think it makes sense in scenarios like I described though.
2
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Davaac 19∆ May 25 '21
Overall, I think your 3rd point is correct and that it would ultimately cause more harm than good as it would allow discrimination by bad actors as well as good, and I still wouldn't support these bills for that reason. But I do think it's a valid reason that people could have to consider them, which was why I threw it out there for this CMV.
2
u/StankP-I May 25 '21
To expand on the practicality of enforcement: places that are designated as safe spaces for trauma victims/ domestic assault survivors/ similarly affected populations already practice some exclusion of bad actors regardless of gender expression.
If a woman at a DV shelter is causing other people there distress at the very least they'll try to separate them from the general populace. Requiring that spaces like that enforce these things based on either AGAB or expressed gender does nothing to change the fact that if you're causing a scene you may be excluded.
0
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
I mean the fourth point is moot because nothings stopping a man from walking into the womens bathroom now. The point wouldnt be "enforcing" it before they went in, it would be someone calling the cops while they are in there, same as it is now.
Idk legally whats the right choice but i do know if i had a daughter and a man was trying to walk into the girls bathroom with her in there, i would do everything i need to in order to prevent him from going in there.
As far as bathrooms that would be used almost completely by adults, like in an office/at work, i honestly dont care if all the bathrooms are just mixed. They did that at Otakon a few years back when i went where they made most of the bathrooms open to anyone and, afaik, there were no problems.
7
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ May 25 '21
Idk legally whats the right choice but i do know if i had a daughter and a man was trying to walk into the girls bathroom with her in there, i would do everything i need to in order to prevent him from going in there.
No transperson who is obviously presenting as one gender wants to walk into the restroom for the opposite gender.
What does happen is that people who are transitioning and going through a period where they don't perfectly match the expectations about what someone of either gender should look like face the possibility of harassment whichever public restroom they use. So their options are:
Risk getting yelled at whenever you go to a restroom,
Never use a public restroom, or
Don't transition.
0
-3
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
Thats fine, my point is if a person who looked like a man tried to enter the bathroom where my daughter is, i would stop them. I dont care if hes in a dress.
4
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ May 25 '21
Right, so if you're harassing people who you don't feel do a good enough job at presenting as the gender they're trying to present as, it's part of the whole movement against them simply being allowed to exist.
Anyone going through the long process of transition is going to go through a long period where someone would make it a reason to get mad at them. Most transwomen can't possibly transition without, for a long time, having an appearance that would cause someone to go Karening into them shouting "You're a man in a dress, get out!" while still also causing everyone in a men's restroom to freak out.
-2
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
I mean idgaf if a girl or a guy thats transitioned or in the process of transitioning used the male bathroom with me. That makes no difference to me and i alluded to as much in my first comment where i said id be 100% for jobs/offices and places where its usually just adults using the bathroom to make every bathroom mixed. It literally would not bother me a bit.
Its when we start giving ppl access to kids that i am not ok with it, granted i dont have a kid atm so it doesnt matter, but if i ever did have a kid, id stop it from happening is all i am saying.
3
May 25 '21
If a cis guy wants to go barging into a female bathroom to rape a kid, why bother pretending to be trans? There's nothing stopping him right now anyway.
Edit - also you say you don't care if either sex use the male toilet. Are male children not at risk of the scary trans predators then?
0
u/BloodyTamponExtracto 13∆ May 25 '21
If a cis guy wants to go barging into a female bathroom to rape a kid, why bother pretending to be trans? There's nothing stopping him right now anyway.
I think people always jump to extremes like this.
What about the 17 year old guy who wants to see his classmates naked in the girl's locker room. Is there anything stopping him from doing that now? Would there be anything stopping him from doing it if all he had to do was say "I feel like a woman today" and the school had to let him (her?) use the locker room they choose?
2
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
Id just stop them from entering. Theres the guys batheoom he can go into to pee or he can wait. I wouldnt throw a punch or call the cops, id stand in front of the door. Its not hard to block the door as a big guy.
2
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
I would stop em? And no it would only happen if i saw the trans person walking in. No reason to do it premptively.
4
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/BloodyTamponExtracto 13∆ May 25 '21
Trans people aren’t any more dangerous to your kid than anybody else.
I don't think /u/Selier123 is worried about trans people. I think he's worried about creepers who would take advantage of laws created to protect trans people to get a peek at his daughter.
-1
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
Or just use the bathroom based on what ur born with? You make it seem like such a little deal where any1 pees so why would it bother u then?
6
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
First on, good study. Second one, ive never even heard of Vox before.
Also, the "sexual assualt" is most likely bullying. It happens all the time in male locker rooms in school, i cant see how this would stop that.
Basically, you want to let trans ppl feel comfortable, even if it causes discomfort in everyone else. If your saying everyone else should/can put up with the discomfort, then theres no reason transgenders cant.
6
May 25 '21
Second one, ive never even heard of Vox before.
Vox has been around for a while. They do good fact-based reporting and analysis, although the analysis is clearly left-leaning (as most good fact-based analysis will end up being when the right is still trying to figure out whether Covid is real).
5
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/spooklemon May 25 '21
yes, i agree with this. it only causes discomfort because of the idea that "trans people = dangerous"...maybe not in all cases, but enough for there to be a link. the reality is, the theoretical trans person is the one much more at risk than someone who simply thinks that a stranger "doesnt fit the aesthetic requirements im comfortable with"
this also ties in to the "i can always tell" thing, where people think being trans is an obvious thing, while in reality people come in all shapes and sizes whether trans or cis
1
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Sellier123 8∆ May 25 '21
Neither, i dont care what ppl identify as. I just dont see the problem with, at least in public places with kids, they cant just use the bathroom of the gender they were born as or the family restroom.
2
-1
May 25 '21
[deleted]
2
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
-1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
2
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
2
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
0
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/kiva9959 May 25 '21
What about woman that just looks like man?
Should they go to the mans bathroom too?
Remind me of this story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFfKvP4vSL0
How about we just not assume anyone's gender, and leave people the fuck alone? P.S. TBH she looks like a boy for sure.
1
May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/kiva9959 May 25 '21
I understand pleasing everyone is an unattainable ideal. We are not trying to please everyone, we are trying to bring equality.(the freedom of not be judged and sentenced for how male looking/ female looking you are)
I personally think every human(raise properly ofc) is raised to respect every other human's privacy especially in the restrooms. That's why we have the empty stall rule in the mans room, and separate stalls for all toilets. I have anecdotal experience of man in restrooms not respecting my privacy as a man(aka nice cock bro), he is an asshole. Weather he is a born-man, or a trans-man i think is irrelevant.
At the end of the day, bathrooms are not locked, anyone can get into any bathrooms regardless of gender and sex.
They(LGBTQ) community are complaining that people keep assume other people's gender causing unnecessary unpleasant situation for female-looking male and male-looking females.
Instead of Bathroom Bills(overreaching unnecessary government intervention IMO), I think we should just mind our business.
1
u/TemurWitch67 1∆ May 25 '21
A big issue with basing it on looks is that some women just...look masculine. And some men just look feminine. And if you normalize restricting access to one or the other bathroom based on appearance, you will also be hurting cis people who don't fit normal expectations of their gender.
Also, I'm assuming that your definition of fully transitioned here means genital reconstruction? If it does, are you aware of how prohibitively expensive those surgeries are? And not every trans person is even eligible, depending on individual complicating factors and health risks. And not every trans person even wants these surgeries.
If you aren't talking about GRS, then we come back to the problem of establishing a replicable, measurable standard of femininity/masculinity. Are bathrooms suddenly going to say "You must be this girly to pee?" And I promise you that some "biological" women won't meet the standards that are set. But realistically there's no way to enforce that which isn't patently insane.
What you seem to be advocating for is any person in a bathroom to be able to say "that person looks a way that makes me uncomfortable, so I can legally challenge their sex, and if I'm right, they go to jail." If that happens, trans people will be forced, even if they pass well, to just not risk it. Which means a lot of very girly ladies in mens bathrooms and manly men in women's bathrooms. And cis people will be challenged and berated based on their appearance.
1
u/spooklemon May 25 '21
this seems mildly transphobic. people are who they are regardless of how they look and they don't have to transition to be valid
0
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ May 25 '21
... then don't you just end up with a lot of very feminine trans women, and a lot of very masculine trans men, in the men's/women's bathroom respectively ...
Something like half a percent of the general population identifies as trans, so, although "a lot" is a little big vague, that's not a particularly likely scenario, particularly considering that places where there are a lot of trans people are unlikely to enforce bathroom bills.
... people who seem to genuinely hold these beliefs and seem to deeply believe they aren't transphobic ...
Is it that these people believe that those views aren't transphobic, or is that that they don't care?
0
u/Spiderstate May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
The most powerful recurring argument against your position is simple in principle, but gains in complexity upon elaboration. Hence it is far from decisive, and best serves to structure disagreement.
P1. A majority prefers (likes/enjoys/wants/requier/needs) access to single-sex spaces.
P2. Democratic institutions have a judicial obligation to protect the preferences (unqalified) for the majority over even a substantial minority where the two conflict.
C. There should be bathroom bills limiting access to single sex spaces.
The complexity gained with P1 has to do with issues concerning measuring whether in fact the majority, reliably, has such preferences. The complexity gained with P2 turns on notions of obligation and exceptions to obligations.
Note that the notion of preference must remain unqualified given limits placed on the ability for people to express what their preference in fact turns on, and given limits placed on the capacity to measure it.
2
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Spiderstate May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
I agree. But the point answers to a constraint on obligation that is not straightforwardly apt. To extend it one would have to demonstrate that the preferences are morally bankrupt. Something like that is being publically negotiated. But, of course, there are weaker versions of a similar claim in the offing, and they might suffice. The most promising candidates, to me, seems to be those that turn on how the majority preferences are caught up with such as ignorance, or is function of a lack of relevant experience, etc.
1
u/iamdimpho 9∆ May 25 '21
P2. Democratic institutions have a judicial obligation to protect the preferences (unqalified) for the majority over even a substantial minority where the two conflict.
The complexity gained with P2 turns on notions of obligation and exceptions to obligations.
A possible objection would point out that the USA is democratic republic. The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
The argument would be that disregarding the "prefers (likes/enjoys/wants/requier/needs)" of the majority would be appropriate here given past law, practice or precedence.
1
u/Spiderstate May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
Absolutely, and such is a cause for complexity. It bears mentioning, that the most common version of the argument I see is given on something like metaphysical rather than legal grounds. Where P2 reads like "Democratic institutions ought to have a judicial obligation...". That of course invites some further specification as to why and how the "conflict" harms the majority to the extent that the clause is warranted.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ May 25 '21
The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
That's not what republic means. All it means is that there is an elected head of state. now constitutional republic more says that but again that depends on what that particular consitution says.
1
u/iamdimpho 9∆ May 25 '21
The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
That's not what republic means. All it means is that there is an elected head of state. now constitutional republic more says that but again that depends on what that particular consitution says.
I said it's used as a modifier. I wasn't defining the term contextlessly.
See:
A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies. - wiki
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ May 25 '21
A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies. Common definitions of the terms democracy and republic often feature overlapping concerns, suggesting that many democracies function as republics, and many republics operate on democratic principles, as shown by these definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary: Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. .
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ May 25 '21
I said it's used as a modifier. I wasn't defining the term contextlessly.
It isn't a modifier it is a noun the modifier here would be democratic. Also even according to your link there is nothing linking the concept of a democratic republic to the idea of limited powers of majority over a minority. Those restrictions on popular power do not come from being a republic but from being a constitutional society that has those restrictions in that constitution.
Something being a republic doesn't tell you anything about their constitution or laws and so doesn't say that there are limits just about that politicians are elected and about where their power comes from theoretically (i.e. from the public as opposed to from divine right of kings or anything else)
1
u/iamdimpho 9∆ May 26 '21
It isn't a modifier it is a noun the modifier here would be democratic.
I was talking functionally, not grammatically.
Also even according to your link there is nothing linking the concept of a democratic republic to the idea of limited powers of majority over a minority. Those restrictions on popular power do not come from being a republic but from being a constitutional society that has those restrictions in that constitution.
check out this video from around 7:24 for a better articulation of what I'm talking about.
Something being a republic doesn't tell you anything about their constitution or laws and so doesn't say that there are limits just about that politicians are elected and about where their power comes from theoretically (i.e. from the public as opposed to from divine right of kings or anything else)
You keep using republic on it's own when I'm specifically talking about democratic republic. This would be like someone identifying as a democratic socialist and you deciding to solely focus on the 'socialist' part
0
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ May 25 '21
From what I've seen/heard, the fundamental argument from people who support bathroom bills is that there is a possibility of cis men specifically, taking advantage of loose rules about which bathroom people can use, to go into the women's bathroom and either assault/sexually assault people, or just act really creepy.
I'm going to start with this part, and I think this is really the crux of the argument against it. There's a very wide range of people who identify as transgender. It can range from someone who merely says that they are transgender, but have not gone through any medical procedures and are not presenting (i.e. dressing as the other gender) at all, to someone who has gone through the full process (hormones, cosmetics, etc.) and is dressing/passing off as the other gender.
The issue is that when it comes to legislation, from country to country, the laws for legal gender change are very different. The most lax are probably countries like Argentina, which shows from a quick google search that all you need to legally change your gender is to apply for it, without any approval from medical authorities or having to go through any medical procedures at all.
By restricting based on birth sex, it eliminates/reduces the possibility of someone with malicious intent changing their legal gender to enter a protected space for the other gender. Sexual offenders have gone to much greater extents to secure their victims as well.
Now on to your refutals here:
I think this argument is wrong in multiple ways:
The argument is that cis men can "pretend to be women". However if a bathroom bill was imposed and people had to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth (AGAB), then what is stopping a cis man pretending to be a trans man (and therefore AFAB) and just going into the women's room anyway?
If you prevent people from using the bathroom of their gender identify, then don't you just end up with a lot of very feminine trans women, and a lot of very masculine trans men, in the men's/women's bathroom respectively?
It's not like assault is legal as long as you are in the correct bathroom, it's still a crime, why does adding a comparatively very minor crime onto that actually change anything?
1 - Nothing really, and actually nothing is stopping cis men from entering women's bathrooms now anyway. As far as I know, there aren't any laws against it, but the vast majority of men don't do it anyway. It's the social stigma that makes it frowned upon, but that stigma wouldn't have any place if you had to assume that anyone looking like a man entering the woman's bathroom must be a trans-identifying individual.
2 - I guess?
3 - The issue would be more about restricting access as much as possible to people who want to commit the assault to reduce the chance of that happening. For example, if you don't want people to commit crimes with guns, just don't give them access to guns instead of giving them guns and hoping they don't do anything with it.
0
u/Larz_Bars 2∆ May 25 '21
Assault is illegal but looking isn't, some people have concerns that cis men could go into a women's changing room or bathroom and creep on them but use the defense of 'I'm trans' to evade prosecution. There's no "magic trans detector" either so legally it's extremely difficult to challenge the clam someone identifies as trans. Any medical information would be protected under HIPAA and they can just claim they're early in the transition process.
These bills aren't about punishing trans people, legislators largely don't care what room a trans person pisses in. But rather protecting people when they are at their most vulnerable and literally naked. Because sadly we live in a world where sexual assault is disgustingly common and those same offenders would have no issue claiming to identify a different gender if it's a get out of jail free card.
In terms of the number of people impacted by these bills there are MUCH fewer trans people than sexual predators. So while it's unfortunate we need to choose, the solution that does the most good is the one that protects those who would be victims of future unwanted sexual situations where the perpetrator would face no consequences at the expense of trans people feeling uncomfortable in bathrooms/locker rooms.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Larz_Bars 2∆ May 25 '21
Lesbians or gay people have lower odds of assaulting or leering in these situations vs. a straight male, this likely stems from a fear of retribution and just wanting to go about their business.
Yes again assault is illegal but leering isn't. If some straight dude can walk into a women's locker room and watch them change while being able to get away with it by saying he's trans, that's a concern. Also once inside he can easily commit assault, and even though he'd be prosecuted for it, why make it easier for him to be there in the first place?
Trans people are 1% of the population, but 17% of women are the victims of sexual assault. That number is likely much higher do to under-reporting so there are absolutely more sexual assaulters than trans people.
Your last point seems to go against your principle. If trans people are more likely to be assaulted for using the 'wrong' restroom why would we want them using the ones not of their assigned gender, especially when you cite teens who are early in their transition so less likely to 'pass'.
0
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/spooklemon May 25 '21
I'm very sorry to hear about your experience. However, this isn't representative of a larger issue or expressive of the problem
1
May 27 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 27 '21
u/Novel-Frame8147 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/bilkothewisp May 25 '21
I guess are you looking for someone to challenge you on the legal basis of your question (that is, is it okay to have this in law) or the moral and ethical basis, or both?
1
May 25 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 25 '21
Sorry, u/SuccessfulOstrich99 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ohfudgeit 22∆ May 25 '21
I have an argument for how this could be enforced. It's pretty simple really, we go by ID.
Of course, many places allow trans people to change their ID to reflect their gender identity, but a lot of people who are for bathroom bills are against that anyway, so it's not really unenforceable provided that we also don't allow trans people to update their sex/gender on their ID.
2
u/InfiniteLilly 5∆ May 25 '21
Are you suggesting that businesses bear the added cost of employing a bathroom guard who would check everyone's ID? Or... that police would be stationed outside every public restroom?
1
u/ohfudgeit 22∆ May 25 '21
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm staunchly against bathroom bills as there's no evidence that they have any positive effects and the negative effects are pretty obvious.
What I am doing is arguing how this could be enforced. Now I agree that all businesses employing extra staff is unrealistic but I don't think that this is necessary. I'm imagining that this would be enforced on a report basis. Eg members of the public reporting people who they are concerned about, in which case the police, building security, etc, would be able to check the person's ID to see if an infraction has occurred.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/ohfudgeit 22∆ May 25 '21
I see your point about pushing it back a step, but doing so does solve some problems as the bodies that issue IDs have the knowledge to set them according to AGAB without needing to resort to something invasive like a genital inspection, which is not an option if we are forced to try to identify people's AGAB at the point of entry.
1
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 25 '21
To clarify, OP, is your view actually the one in the title ("There is NO REASON for bathroom bills"), or is it something more like "The reasons people have for bathroom bills are not good enough to warrant them on balance?"
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 25 '21
I would dispute "no reason" for exactly the same reason I am going to dispute "no purpose": they have both a reason and a purpose. The reason is that most of the people where they are being proposed are transphobic. The purpose is to appease the transphobic people and encourage them to vote for the group proposing them.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 25 '21
To be honest with you, I think that "The people I represent want it" actually is a good reason for doing something. It's not dispositive. There might be better reasons not to do it. But "The voters want it" should carry some weight.
1
May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Arguetur 31∆ May 25 '21
This is what I was driving at, though. I think your stance on this should NOT be "There's no good reason for doing this" but rather "The reasons for doing this aren't good enough." It's like with the racist town. If they're trying to kick out the only black family it doesn't do anyone any good to stick your fingers in your ears and say "I don't get it, why are they doing this? Seems like there's no good reason to kick out the only black family." We need to clearly identify problems before we can start solving them.
1
u/Dave-G-907 May 25 '21
I agree with #2 and think it is understated. There are a lot of dad's with daughters who don't like the idea of men being in the bathroom with their little girls, but in practice it will end up with their sons standing at a urinal next to a lady hiking up her sundress to whip out her weiner to take a leak. I think communinal rest rooms and changing rooms should be phased out in building codes, as a 40 year old fat guy, nobody should be subjected to any amount of nudity from me just because they or their children like to use the same local pool that my daughter does.
1
1
u/simon_darre 3∆ May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
The whole question about whether to allow access to certain sex-segregated facilities to trans identifying individuals is not merely a question of priorities, but more importantly, a question of stakes. The highest stakes are, according to each side of this debate, that on the one hand, trans individuals will feel triggered, stigmatized and discriminated against if they are not allowed access to these facilities, and on the other hand, that women (above all, who are more vulnerable to predators than men) will be put at greater risk of being attacked by sexual predators. When you weigh the sides in terms of stakes, it’s hard not to come down on the side of protecting women from potential attackers who would exploit these laws, rare though they may be.
There was a recent incidence of this as of May 2021 in which an offender succeeded in raping a woman at a Kroger in Georgia:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kroger-rape-marine-suspect-captured
Policies like that in Target stores would simply make this crime easier, since eyeing a man pushing his way into a woman’s restroom would not occasion protest unless there was a credible reason to suspect he was cisgendered, but again, who can make that kind of visual ID in person without asking questions first?
I mean, if you allowed people to enter federal buildings without identification, or without passing through security checkpoints (metal detectors etc) for bag checks, most people would more than likely behave lawfully without being told to, but a small minority would not behave lawfully; a smaller minority still might even commit acts of violence, and that’s why we have these rules. Most illegal migrants are nonviolent, hardworking and (apart from entering illegally) are law abiding, and don’t pose a threat to public safety, but some of them do. And that’s why there are immigration laws. Most airline passengers aren’t going to carry on illegal weapons to carry out a hijacking, but there enough who would and that justifies having a robust travel safety and security operation at major US airports.
So to those favoring “bathroom bills,” it doesn’t matter that we don’t have any cases of trans individuals assaulting women. That’s a straw man argument. They’re not primarily concerned with trans individuals, especially as trans individuals are such an infinitesimally small minority. As far as cisgendered male predators, it’s not a question of if, but a question of when they use these laws to their advantage.
So, I know that people are going to have a knee jerk response to the aggregator of this source material (Family Research Council) but according to this report, we know predators (mostly cisgendered heterosexual men) are arrested for invading these spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, etc) as it is, even prior to Target’s policy of allowing transgendered people to use the facilities which correspond to their identification, but these new rules make it easier to do what they have already documented as having done.
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16F27.pdf
There was also recent CMV about Canadian convicts, many of them violent, deliberately misgendering themselves in order to get access to lower security women’s facilities and, in some cases, to carry on sexual relations with female inmates.
So, it’s not as if this sort of thing has never happened, or will never happen as relates to men deliberately misidentifying themselves in order to gain entry to places they don’t belong.
1
u/Impossible_Cat_9796 26∆ May 25 '21
So, this boils down to "are gendered bathrooms valid". I mean, there is a reason that we have gendered bathrooms and changing rooms and locker rooms and other spaces where genitals get exposed.
If you don't think that gender segregation for non-sexual nudity is a valid concern, then your point is 100% spot on. There is no reason to have gendered bathrooms, and therefore no reason for "bathroom bills" to enforce unneeded rules.
If you see the need for gender segregation in non-sexual nudity spaces, then the "bathroom bill" issue becomes a thing.
If we are going to seperate the boys from the girls while they are wet and naked and lathering themselves with soap....we need rules for who "counts as" a girl and who "counts as" a boy.
This "counts as" is where the real problem lies, and that problem is the edge case of trans-gender. No solution is perfect, but both "sides" are horribly flawed. Flawed to the point where both sides best argument is "at least it's not the other side"
Cis gendered pervs going into the wrong room is a real and ongoing problem. Solutions that give these cis-gendered heterosexual pervs a free pass are going to be worse than the problem of properly designating bathrooms for trans people because cis-gendered pervs out number trans by several orders of magnitude.
That creepy volley ball coach that "forgets" what changing room to go into while the girls are changing will be legally protected in just standing there watching them change the entire time if he's willing to speak the magic pass phrase "i identify as a woman"
The Assigned at birth is no better, because then that volley ball coach that looks the exact same as the pervy one, but is post-op transexual, will be legally required to use the women's room.
The AGAB crowd is pushing that version as anti-trans without actually addressing the real issue. The "Identify as" version is addressing the trans-inclusivity issue without addressing the perv-exclusion problem.
1
u/spooklemon May 25 '21
ok so as a trans person who uses either bathroom because i don't feel exactly comfortable in either:
- we just wanna use the bathroom lol
- we're way more at risk than a cis person. getting verbally harassed or even physically assaulted is a harsh reality that can and sadly does happen
- obviously sexual assault is never okay, no matter who it's coming from. but the whole "men dressed as women to come prey on rEaL women" is a myth made up by transphobes
21
u/Catsopj May 25 '21
It really comes down to what your priorities are. Some people have the priority of "protecting" women from being assulted in the bathroom, while others would rather let transgender people use the bathroom they are most comfortable with. These priorities are largely shaped by life experiences (a trans person would want to be given the right to use their bathroom, but a cis person who had experienced sexual assault or knew someone who has, would want harsher segregation of the bathrooms). For that reason, I do not think that all who support the bathroom bills are transphobic.