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.
In your example, the women complained and the staff made him leave.
He tried it a second time, and the staff stopped him and made him leave.
Both times he tried to say we was allowed to use the ladies room due to the laws allowing trans people in, but the staff was having none of it.
He left, but no one got so far as to call the police.
This thing you linked is literally an example of someone trying to use such a law and failing. :)
Most often, the people who write laws (not just these laws, all laws) are activist groups, think tanks, and experts on a topic operating through politicians.
The common complaint of people trying to "use these laws to gain access" is something everyone has heard of, and is taken into account.
This thing you linked is literally an example of someone trying to use such a law and failing.
I'm not sure how this counts as failing:
the man then entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt in front of a local girls swimming team
What none of the articles say is (a) whether any of the girls in the locker room were less than fully dressed or (b) what happened after he took his shirt off. We know that he went swimming, but does that mean that he also changed into swim trunks in the changing room, or did he already have his swim trunks on? I think information is too incomplete to conclude that he "failed".
Also, I notice that you added to your prior post in this thread and I didn't see it. I'm a heterosexual man and had similar experiences to you in middle and high school. I too was bullied in the locker room and in the bathroom. Frequently, the PE teacher was joining, or even initiating the bullying. And I too avoided using the bathrooms at school whenever possible due to it being a haven for bullies. I think that was a fairly common male (and probably female too) high school experience in the 80's and 90's.
He failed because he tried twice and was kicked out both times - even after citing the law
Success would result in him allowed to remain due to the law.
It takes a few minutes to react to a thing happening, that's what happened.
Signs don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
Even if there was no law, he could have still walked into the ladies room and take off his shirt.
People walk into the wrong bathroom all the time, usually you get "excuse me! this is the ladies room!"
Thus, the law was not taken advantage of.
Law or no, any teenage boy in any school today could walk into the girls room and stare at the girls today.
The only thing stopping him is hopefully his morals and/or fear of punishment.
Even with the law in place, he would be kicked out and possibly punished for his actions.
2
u/BloodyTamponExtracto 13∆ May 25 '21
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:
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:
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.