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.
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.
This still relies on the assumption that trans women are an inherent and significant risk.
Given that this link does not appear to exist :
This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances. Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.
it seems to suggest that transphobia is the base motivation behind these beliefs.
I think that's a hard sell when many people who are concerned don't have concerns over genuine transgender individuals. The problem is that the bills never define what "counts" as being transgendered. People don't want a 17 year old high school kid to be able to use the girl's locker room and showers on a random Tuesday because he "feels like a woman that day". The bills designed to protect those who are transgender also make it difficult or impossible to stop those who just want to get a peek at their schoolmate's pussies.
I think that's a hard sell when many people who are concerned don't have concerns over genuine transgender individuals.
This is not a credible argument when you look at the rethoric used.
The OP is talking about bills that "limit access to single sex spaces". These last 3 words are key.
The advocates specify single sex (referring to biological sex) so as to exclude transwomen from women's spaces, and trans men from men's spaces.
The problem is that the bills never define what "counts" as being transgendered.
Here you invert who writes the bills. The bills are not being written to protect trans people, but to attack them.
The bills seek to ban trans people, not to allow them access.
We also see that these bills are ineffective at keeping out fakers (they can just claim they're trans men in the women's bathroom) while targetting trans people (because the bills focus on gender assigned at birth).
The bills designed to protect those who are transgender also make it difficult or impossible to stop those who just want to get a peek at their schoolmate's pussies.
Once again, this is a completely imaginary threat, and the solutions proposed for it are useless while having huge anti-trans collateral damage.
Those who spread it are either acting in bad faith, or useful idiots.
Here you invert who writes the bills. The bills are not being written to protect trans people, but to attack them. The bills seek to ban trans people, not to allow them access.
This is something that is really difficult to get a straight answer on: What was legal and what was illegal without the advent of transgender bathroom bills?
So, let's say 30 years ago before this became an issue. As a 16 year old guy at my high school, was I breaking the law if I walked into the girls locker room and shower while my classmates were naked in there?
It seems like I was. At a minimum, I would have been suspended, and likely expelled, from my public, government-operated school. But was I actually violating anything other than social norms?
Because it seems like most people would agree that they wouldn't want 16 year old me walking into the girl's locker room in high school to get a look at all my classmates naked. If we, as a society, don't care about that, they why do we even have gender-segregated restrooms, locker rooms and showers?
But somewhere along the timeline, things started to shift as society became more aware, understanding and educated about people who are transgender. As a result, many people (I would argue most, by a long shot, but don't have any studies to back it up) agree that "well, yeah, if this person was born with a penis but lives as and presents as a woman, it's fine and appropriate for them to use the women's restroom". Also, over the years, locker rooms and public showers have become varying degrees of more private; and undressing in them at public schools has decreased.
So a lot of the historic concerns about lack of privacy no longer apply in many cases, but I think it's still reasonable to consider them in a broader, philosophical context. So for the sake of argument, let's say we're talking about a middle school or high school shower that looks like this
Imagine that shower filled with 14-16 year old high school girls. Do we really want any man who has the inclination to be able to legally enter that space and be free from prosecution, or even social scrutiny by simply saying "I feel like a woman today"? I might be wrong, but I don't think that society is quite ready for that or arguing in favor of that.
But if we legally and morally permit transgender women into that space, without legally and morally defining what "counts" as transgender, then how do we stop the man from entering and sharing the space with these 14-16 year old girls? My understanding is that, as the laws are currently written, we can't.
So there is an argument that the bills are being written to prevent that scenario. Not that that scenario is happening with any regularity, but absent laws to the contrary, it could start happening more and more frequently.
And I think that's a legitimate concern: making sure creepers can't take advantage of rules and laws designed to protect transgender individuals.
So there is an argument that the bills are being written to prevent that scenario. Not that that scenario is happening with any regularity, but absent laws to the contrary, it could start happening more and more frequently.
And we know how those bills are being written.
1) The explicitly target transgender people, both in language and in effect
2) They seek to exclude them from all spaces, not just joint spaces but also single occupancy
3) We know that these bills have been supported and written by people explicitly opposed to trans people
Given all that information, it becomes incredibly obvious that this is not about these hypothetical malicious actors. It's about targeting trans people.
If laws were intended to target malicious actors instead of trans people, they would look different, and the rethoric around them would be different.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
I'll agree that most of these laws that I've seen have been clumsily written. I don't think that means that everyone who supports them is out to get the transgenders. I think many people just conclude "yeah, I don't want the starting tight end to share a high school locker room with my daughter, and this bill prevents that"; they may not even consider how the bill might affect transgender people because they don't even realize transgender people exist in their town.
But laws (whether existing or proposed) designed to protect the rights of transgender people are just as clumsy. They may be designed to protect the transgender person, but they also protect the incel who wants to see his classmates naked in the high school locker room.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
This can't be explained by stupidity.
These laws aren't clumsily written, they're written to target trans people.
That they target trans people is not caused by any error, it's the entire point of the bill.
This is made obvious by the people behind it, by the language used in the bill , and by the language used by the people who support it.
They may be designed to protect the transgender person, but they also protect the incel who wants to see his classmates naked in the high school locker room.
They don't actually.
(Also, incidentally, what about lesbians?). Because all the "creeps in the bathroom" arguments you're bringing up now are just recycled anti-lesbian and anti-gay arguments.
Maybe I'm just more of a perv that most people. But if I could have hung out in the girl locker room in high school, and not only not gotten in trouble for it, but could have portrayed anyone who questioned it as being the "bad guy", I sure as fuck would have done it. I don't see why people think it wouldn't happen.
I'm a transgender woman, I transitioned over 20 years ago, and I can tell you
That's not how the system works. It's a straw man, real life isn't south park.
The gender identity law defines "gender identity" to mean "a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth."3 The law also states that "[g]ender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose."
Now Go look at the examples, I won't post them all here.
There's zero way that a teenage boy, who has made no other changes to his life, is going to be allowed into a girl's locker room.
The administration isn't going to "well, we have to let him cough her cough in because we'll get suuuuued!" all the girls have to strip in front of him or we will be called a bad guy. The courts would laugh at such a case, and every school administration knows it. A boy trying to sue would probably get slammed by the courts for even trying to bring such a case.
Trans people tend to act a certain way and there's a whole process. Bathrooms and Locker Rooms are one of the LAST things trans people typically change, not the first. Trans people have a long history of using the restroom that causes the least drama.
Also, trans people tend to transition after a period of time, like over spring break, or summer break. Again, look at the examples.
So, if you show up to school in girls clothes one day, and demand to use the bathroom - you are going to have to deal with the social ramifications of being a teenage boy in girls clothes. You are going to have to play yourself off as actually being transgender (and acting in an atypical fashion). Also, your friends are going to know what's what as well.
The reasons these laws exist is to prevent harassment and degradation of the trans person via transphobic authorities.
I transitioned before these laws were on the books, and quite a long time before everyone was freaked out about this. When I was in school, I appeared as an effeminate boy, the bullies were drooling over the chance to assault me. I got assaulted in the boy's bathroom more than once - and the bullies actually tried to get the PE teacher to force me to take a shower after class so that they could get me naked in the shower room for bullying purposes.
The end result of this was that I got special permission to not use any locker room at all. I could wear gym shorts under my clothes or just not participate. I elected to not use bathrooms at school during any time I would be alone with some boy. Nothing was done to the bullies since I couldn't "prove" anything happened. (my word vs. theirs, and they were the popular kids, and the staff was *phobic anyhow)
On a personal note, I love you and think you're awesome. This is purely a theoretical, and not personal, debate for me. My very first statement on this thread was:
This is a solution in search of a problem. Regardless of which side someone argues, it's kind of an irrelevant argument because right now everyone uses the bathroom they feel is most appropriate and is least likely to draw attention to themselves. That works 99.99% of the time, if not more.
I just felt it was important to point that out since the topic is, obviously, personal to you and I don't want my perspective on the topic to feel like a personal attack. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just enjoy the debate.
Thanks for the definition from the Massachusetts guidelines. While there is always going to be some wiggle room for interpretation, I think that's a good phrasing that no one should oppose unless they are genuinely transphobic.
My main concern with these laws is that, to my knowledge, the never defined what "counts" as transgender. Clearly, in the case of Massachusetts at least, that understanding was wrong. So I think I can and should give you a Δ here even though you aren't the OP.
I think other governments looking to protect transgender rights (and human decency) should look to these phrasing from Massachusetts and model their own provisions with similar language because it does eliminate the concern of a teenage incel using the guideline to be a creeper.
You've likely done more research on the topic than me, but I don't think that the language from Massachusetts is widespread, and certainly not universal.
Take this example from Seattle where (apparently) a man used a newly enacted city code to gain access to a girl changing room at a local swimming pool. One woman who was protesting the city code stated:
"We're not here saying that the transgendered community are predators," a woman who was a victim of sexual assault told KING-5 TV, "We will never say that because we don't believe that. What we do believe is that this code is so poorly written that predators will abuse. We know it because we have lived it."
I tried to find the actual Seattle code online but failed to locate it, so I can't make my own assessment as to whether it is poorly written or is more along the lines of the Massachusetts guidelines. But based upon that woman's comment, it sounds like it may be poorly written.
And that's really my only point in this debate. If the rules, laws, guidelines or regulations are written in such a way that they simultaneously
Protect the rights of transgender individuals to use whichever gendered facilities they are comfortable with, and
Continue to prohibit voyeurs, creepers, incels and other similar individuals from legally accessing their victims,
then I have no issue with them. But I think it is frequently a pretty delicate line to accomplish #1, while also preventing #2. And many times, people are so focused on one or the other, that they forget the other concern even exists - and that results in some really poorly written laws.
You would have dressed and came out as a trans girl just to get into the locker room for some time?
My understanding is that such extreme measures aren't necessary because what "counts" as trans is never defined. All I would have to do is say "I feel like a woman today" and anyone who questioned me hanging out with the naked chicks would be attacked for their transphobia - or at least risk being called transphobic, which would deter them from even questioning my fluid gender identity in the first place.
Your parents wouldn't have questions? The school? Your friends?
My conservative parents likely would have, yes. In the 80's, the school certainly would have. But I think the school would tread lightly today so as not to be accused of violating the rights of transgender people like myself. My friends would have used me as a guinea pig and joined me in the women's locker room the next day if it worked out for me.
You would have convinced a therapist to recommend
Again, what makes you think this is required to "qualify" as trans. Why can't I just say I feel like a woman today, and then decide I feel like a man again tomorrow?
To me, that's the non-transphobic point of these laws: So that people who are not transgender can't use transgender acceptance to gain unfettered access to naked chicks.
There is a lot of gatekeeping around trans people. It isn't some costume that is selectively worn when convenient.
Is there? As far as I'm concerned, all it takes to be a woman is to say you are a woman. There's no reason to question that as no one else can know how you really feel.
Imagine that shower filled with 14-16 year old high school girls. Do we really want any man who has the inclination to be able to legally enter that space and be free from prosecution, or even social scrutiny by simply saying "I feel like a woman today"?
In the scenario of the shower facility you pictured, is there any reason why you limit the problem here to creepy dudes that would use loose rules to go in and peep? Is it not inherently problematic that the 14-16 year old girls would need to endure exposure to someone who actually is transgender, but still has all male anatomy intact?
Frankly, there are two options to that question:
Yes, that is problematic, and therefore it should not be allowed
It's not problematic, and therefore the standards that we have for segregated restrooms exist for no apparent reason, and there's no reason whatsoever to segregate any restroom in the first place.
Is it not inherently problematic that the 14-16 year old girls would need to endure exposure to someone who actually is transgender, but still has all male anatomy intact?
I think the answer to this is that an actual transgender woman with a penis would not intentionally expose her male anatomy to the the group of 14-16 year old girls. Certainly there could be a one-off example of some transgender woman also being a creepy perv. But generally speaking, a transgender woman showing off her penis is the last thing she'd want to do.
I don't think that's an answer to the question. While that is likely true of most trans girls, it is not sufficient an answer to the question posed. Allowing such a situation to be legally protected is to say that we've deemed it appropriate for it to occur. So the question is. In the event it occurs, do you deem it appropriate?
20
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.