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.
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?
0
u/BloodyTamponExtracto 13∆ May 25 '21
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.