The Bathroom Dilemma

[StrangeSox]

What's stopping the creep-o guy we're talking about here from being able to designate that he's a female? It's not like you can perform a test to determine your gender identity.

 

Writing law around extreme edge case hypotheticals to the detriment of significantly more people seems like a bad idea imo.

 

If a creep-o guy wants to troll womens' restrooms, that seems like an awful lot of hurdles to jump through to have some sort of really tenuous legal standing.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's more documented cases of Republican men trolling bathrooms for on-the-down-low gay sex than transgendered people stalking womens restrooms.

 

Keep in mind that the laws now sort of defacto allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of their preference, and this does not appear to have actually caused any issues. Laws like NC explicitly change the status quo.

 

So why do we need laws in either direction? I don't support the NC law, but the laws/ordinances that are being passed that give transgendered people the right to be in certain places just invites more problems than it's worth IMO.

[RockRaines]

What's stopping the creep-o guy we're talking about here from being able to designate that he's a female? It's not like you can perform a test to determine your gender identity.

well, if you want to be a female to everyone in the world then you can be a female. If creeping means so much to you that you no longer want to be considered a man, then there you are. This type of freak probably is already dressing up as a woman to enter bathrooms and locker rooms already anyway.

Edited May 5, 2016 by RockRaines

[RockRaines]

So why do we need laws in either direction? I don't support the NC law, but the laws/ordinances that are being passed that give transgendered people the right to be in certain places just invites more problems than it's worth IMO.

You basically just nailed the reason why marriage laws shouldnt exist.

[lostfan]

If it says male on your license you go to the mens locker room, if it says female thats where you go. If you do the opposite you get in trouble. Pretty much whats going to happen. Of course this depends on true trans people being allowed to put the sex they identify with on their license.

I'm okay with this, but I don't see the need to enforce this. They've been here the whole time and the vast majority of the time people don't even notice.

[Jenksismyhero]

Writing law around extreme edge case hypotheticals to the detriment of significantly more people seems like a bad idea imo.

 

If a creep-o guy wants to troll womens' restrooms, that seems like an awful lot of hurdles to jump through to have some sort of really tenuous legal standing.

 

Isn't that what this whole issue is about? We're "protecting" an extreme fringe of people to the potential detriment/comfort of significantly more people?

 

Creep-o's will do anything. My wife's work (a major medical center here in the city) had a creep a couple of years ago that came into women's bathrooms and took photos under stalls. It happened frequently enough that they had to send a memo out about it, campus-wide. If you're willing to do something like that, I don't think having to put female on your DL is a big hurdle.

[StrangeSox]

So why do we need laws in either direction? I don't support the NC law, but the laws/ordinances that are being passed that give transgendered people the right to be in certain places just invites more problems than it's worth IMO.

 

Codifies that it's not okay to physical assault transgendered people for using the 'wrong' restrooms or for them to be thrown out and largely foreclosed from public facilities, which is a thing that happens.

[Jenksismyhero]

well, if you want to be a female to everyone in the world then you can be a female. If creeping means so much to you that you no longer want to be considered a man, then there you are. This type of freak probably is already dressing up as a woman to enter bathrooms and locker rooms already anyway.

 

Right, and the problem with giving people who self-identify the "right" to be there is that when it comes time to prosecute that guy, it's much more difficult because he has the "right" to be there.

 

 

[RockRaines]

I'm okay with this, but I don't see the need to enforce this. They've been here the whole time and the vast majority of the time people don't even notice.

Agreed, but the one time that someone freaked out and called the cops etc is the reason why. Personally I dont want people of any sex that I dont know creeping at me in a locker room. Its bad enough I have to see the old men walking around naked every single minute

[RockRaines]

Right, and the problem with giving people who self-identify the "right" to be there is that when it comes time to prosecute that guy, it's much more difficult because he has the "right" to be there.

And that guy went out of his way to declare himself a woman for all intents and purposes in his life. He has to answer that question when he gets on a plane, goes to a bar, every place this guy goes it will say female on his license. Is it really worth it to that guy?

[Jenksismyhero]

You basically just nailed the reason why marriage laws shouldnt exist.

 

I don't disagree, though I'll say not having marriage or some official designation of coupling creates problems when it comes to estate/property concerns.

[RockRaines]

I don't disagree, though I'll say not having marriage or some official designation of coupling creates problems when it comes to estate/property concerns.

I meant having any restrictions on who you can marry.

[Jenksismyhero]

And that guy went out of his way to declare himself a woman for all intents and purposes in his life. He has to answer that question when he gets on a plane, goes to a bar, every place this guy goes it will say female on his license. Is it really worth it to that guy?

 

He's willing to go into a bathroom and take pictures of women pooping. If that gets him off, yeah, I think it'd probably be worth it to them.

[StrangeSox]

Isn't that what this whole issue is about? We're "protecting" an extreme fringe of people to the potential detriment/comfort of significantly more people?

 

Transgendered people are a small minority, true. Creep-o's who stalk bathrooms but would go to the length of legally changing their sex on their drivers licenses to give very minimal plausibility when they're called out for creeping in bathrooms are a much, much smaller minotiry.

 

As far as the discomfort, you've probably shared a public restroom with a transgendered person without knowing. Which is sort of the point! Unless you're up to some weird stuff yourself (see greg assuming that they just must be thinking sexual thoughts when they go into a public restroom), nobody's looking at each other's junk in the washroom.

 

Creep-o's will do anything. My wife's work (a major medical center here in the city) had a creep a couple of years ago that came into women's bathrooms and took photos under stalls. It happened frequently enough that they had to send a memo out about it, campus-wide. If you're willing to do something like that, I don't think having to put female on your DL is a big hurdle.

 

But this example shows that all of the panic about "creep-o's in the ladies room!" is silly because there's nothing that stops it from happening now.

[bmags]

You know whats kind of uncomfortable sometimes in the restroom? When parents bring their little girls into the mens room.

 

Why isn't that banned, yet? I have rights.

[StrangeSox]

He's willing to go into a bathroom and take pictures of women pooping. If that gets him off, yeah, I think it'd probably be worth it to them.

 

But the idea that this would give him some sort of loophole doesn't make any sense. It's still illegal for a woman to do what he was doing in the bathroom, just as it'd be illegal for a man to take those pictures in the men's room.

[RockRaines]

But the idea that this would give him some sort of loophole doesn't make any sense. It's still illegal for a woman to do what he was doing in the bathroom, just as it'd be illegal for a man to take those pictures in the men's room.

Exactly, the only right he has is to go into the bathroom or locker room. And he had to change his ID for the right to do that. The outlier of all outliers.

[lostfan]

What I've learned from this whole public debate is that a much larger percentage of people than I originally thought assume that other people think of public restrooms as some kind of erotic playground where they have to check sexual urges.

 

I dunno, man. I go in there to s***.

[StrangeSox]

What I've learned from this whole public debate is that a much larger percentage of people than I originally thought assume that other people think of public restrooms as some kind of erotic playground where they have to check sexual urges.

 

I dunno, man. I go in there to s***.

 

Some of that's playing on stereotypes/bigotry of transexuals as sexual deviants, just like the beliefs that gay men are all pedophiles.

[Jenksismyhero]

Transgendered people are a small minority, true. Creep-o's who stalk bathrooms but would go to the length of legally changing their sex on their drivers licenses to give very minimal plausibility when they're called out for creeping in bathrooms are a much, much smaller minotiry.

 

Sure but what's it matter when both are very small minorities compared to the majority that are being affected by the rule?

 

As far as the discomfort, you've probably shared a public restroom with a transgendered person without knowing. Which is sort of the point! Unless you're up to some weird stuff yourself (see greg assuming that they just must be thinking sexual thoughts when they go into a public restroom), nobody's looking at each other's junk in the washroom.

 

Again, totally agree. Unless you're fully trans (the number of which are even smaller), no one would be the wiser, which supports the argument of "why is this necessary?"

 

But this example shows that all of the panic about "creep-o's in the ladies room!" is silly because there's nothing that stops it from happening now.

 

No doubt, however, as I pointed out, using the example of the park district rule at the beginning of this thread, some of these laws/ordinances/rules basically say as soon as someone identifies as being transgendered, that person has a right to be in the bathroom. In a case with a man taking photos of women in a woman's bathroom, the mere fact that he's in there is criminal, and then anything he's claimed to have done in the bathroom is going to be easy to believe.

 

But if he can claim he has the right to be there and he wasn't taking photos, he was just looking at his phone or whatever, the prosecution is much harder. And even if he's just present and making people feel uncomfortable, as in the case of the girls swim team, there's nothing that can be done. He's in there. Whether he's doing anything or not, they feel uncomfortable. Why is that an OK thing?

Edited May 5, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[lostfan]

Some of that's playing on stereotypes/bigotry of transexuals as sexual deviants, just like the beliefs that gay men are all pedophiles.

Right, their gender identity is only about sex (I mean sex sex not gender sex) to the extent that everyone else's is.

[StrangeSox]

Sure but what's it matter when both are very small minorities compared to the majority that are being affected by the rule?

 

One is a real-world issue faced by a small minority not out to harm anyone, the other is a hypothetical fantasy.

 

Again, totally agree. Unless you're fully trans (the number of which are even smaller), no one would be the wiser, which supports the argument of "why is this necessary?"

 

Codifying that it's okay means that it's okay without question. Otherwise it's a guessing game of "where can I pee in public?" with violence as a very real possibility.

 

But this example shows that all of the panic about "creep-o's in the ladies room!" is silly because there's nothing that stops it from happening now.

 

No doubt, however, as I pointed out, using the example of the park district rule at the beginning of this thread, some of these laws/ordinances/rules basically say as soon as someone identifies as being transgendered, that person has a right to be in the bathroom. In a case with a man taking photos of women in a woman's bathroom, the mere fact that he's in there is criminal, and then anything he's claimed to have done in the bathroom is going to be easy to believe.

 

But if he can claim he has the right to be there and he wasn't taking photos, he was just looking at his phone or whatever, the prosecution is much harder. And even if he's just present and making people feel uncomfortable, as in the case of the girls swim team, there's nothing that can be done. He's in there. Whether he's doing anything or not, they feel uncomfortable. Why is that an OK thing?

 

I don't think the hypothetical of a guy changing his legal identification to make prosecution for taking photos in bathrooms infintesimly harder is actually a legitimate concern

 

[RockRaines]

No doubt, however, as I pointed out, using the example of the park district rule at the beginning of this thread, some of these laws/ordinances/rules basically say as soon as someone identifies as being transgendered, that person has a right to be in the bathroom. In a case with a man taking photos of women in a woman's bathroom, the mere fact that he's in there is criminal, and then anything he's claimed to have done in the bathroom is going to be easy to believe.

 

But if he can claim he has the right to be there and he wasn't taking photos, he was just looking at his phone or whatever, the prosecution is much harder. And even if he's just present and making people feel uncomfortable, as in the case of the girls swim team, there's nothing that can be done. He's in there. Whether he's doing anything or not, they feel uncomfortable. Why is that an OK thing?

That guy didnt have female on his license though. Taking it to that next level is something in itself.

[RockRaines]

What I've learned from this whole public debate is that a much larger percentage of people than I originally thought assume that other people think of public restrooms as some kind of erotic playground where they have to check sexual urges.

 

I dunno, man. I go in there to s***.

Seriously. I spend alot of time in airport bathrooms as I travel a ton. It literally impossible for any feeling other than complete disgust

[Jenksismyhero]

One is a real-world issue faced by a small minority not out to harm anyone, the other is a hypothetical fantasy.

 

Codifying that it's okay means that it's okay without question. Otherwise it's a guessing game of "where can I pee in public?" with violence as a very real possibility.

 

You keep saying this but there's a real world example of a team of teenage girls who felt uncomfortable with a man in their bathroom/locker room. And he did it because he could. Yes, nothing happened, but by writing the laws/rules as they did, they're creating an opening that doesn't need to exist. If you want to write a law to protect trans people and make sure they have a place to go to the bathroom, fine, i'm all for it. All i'm saying is write it in a responsible way. Write it with every bathroom/locker room in mind. Not every bathroom is an airport bathroom with 10000 people going in and out each day.