Here's a simple idea that would render these "bathroom bills" null and void. Neuter them, if you will.
Stop building multi-occupant public restrooms with a gender designation, and instead build several single-occupant public restrooms with no gender designation.
Added bonus: Not only do we disarm these attempts to discriminate against transgendered people, we also avoid all the social awkwardness that comes from multi-occupant restrooms. Like the loud person talking on their cell phone. Or the smells of other people doing their thing.
(Retrofitting would be expensive, but don't make that part mandatory.)
We had single-person restrooms at my previous work, shared by multiple companies.
In one building they were gender neutral. As far as I can see, everyone was fine with it. Then we moved to another building where the bathrooms had gender pictograms on them although they were identical in every other respect. Some males eventually went to the female-stamped bathroom when the other was occupied. And someone attached a note in the female bathroom to remind everyone that this was a female-only bathroom…
It's about raising awareness by generating headlines just like this one. Porn is a taboo-ish topic, so the news loves to cover it. More coverage of and negative pressure on these reprehensible laws is only a good thing.
The people introducing this bill aren't going to be the type to be sad that porn is being blocked in their state. If anything they'll see it as a win/win.
Maybe. There have been more incidents with "family values" lawmakers in public bathrooms than transgendered folks. Also "family values" states like Utah are often the biggest consumers of porn. Things are not always what they seem.
Are xHamster users going to be contacting their reps to complain that they can no longer access it? That's another situation that seems unlikely to me.
You're still missing the point. Users who know little to nothing about the law NC passed will be made aware of the issue. Some of those people will take action against the lawmakers and/or people that support the law. Overall awareness of the issue will rise and hopefully cause a real discussion.
No. They'll switch to YouPorn and the others that will be happy to have xHamster's clicks. And if they all follow xHamster's lead, they'll learn how to use VPNs.
Then the whole thing will burn itself out from outrage fatigue and be dropped.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
The answer is that there is no need for any legal standard at all.
I think the problem (illustrated nicely by your comment) is that, in reality, gender is too complex and varied to be adequately addressed by this sort of legislation. While its easy enough to this sort of law to work properly 95% of the time, its hard to come up with a real legal test that doesn't leave some percentage of people marginalized and legally required to use the wrong bathroom (either because its not the one they would feel comfortable using, or also in many cases because it would make the other users of that bathroom uncomfortable).
This being the case, and given a complete lack of any real problem with bathroom use today, one would think that this counsels strongly in favor of having no specific law on the subject at all, and relying instead on the usual social convention. (Bearing in mind, of course, that in the extremely rare event that someone really does stroll into the wrong bathroom for voyeuristic purposes, or to sexually assault someone, we already have laws to punish those people.)
It never ceases to amaze me that people who are normally so quick to declaim against any purported intrusion into individual liberties (note that I'm not necessarily talking about you here) are happy to uncritically accept the proposition that the government should have a role in telling you which bathroom you can and cannot use.
>(Bearing in mind, of course, that in the extremely
>rare event that someone really does stroll into
>the wrong bathroom for voyeuristic purposes,
>or to sexually assault someone, we already have
>laws to punish those people.)
How would this work in your example? What could prevent me from saying I'm gender fluid and walk into the women's showers at the gym?
If we're ready to take the step to say that there is no gender binary then we kind of have to go the whole way and flip to communal showers/bathrooms/dressing rooms etc. Reading your comment reminds me of the obscenity law debates in 1964 when Justice Potter Stewart said...
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,"
If we aren't ready to make the big leap to no recognized genders (which I would argue society at large is not ready for), then standards need to exist from a legal point of view in the mean time.
I think you're overcomplicating things. If a person walks into a public bathroom and starts leering at people, or worse, this is likely illegal regardless of the person's gender. Just ask Larry Craig. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal (The original charge in his case was for "Lewd Conduct" but he eventually pleaded down to disorderly conduct.)
A person's perceived gender (which will be a function of that's person's subjective gender identity, among other things) will play a major role in determining whether a person's conduct is perceived in this way. A woman in a women's bathroom would likely have to do something pretty overt to get herself in trouble. A person who appears to be a man will, presumably, be on much thinner ice. It seems to me that a combination of this and the prevailing social pressure not to wander into the wrong bathroom should be all we need. And, after all, nobody to my knowledge has ever presented a shred of evidence that there is actually a problem with people using the "wrong" bathroom to warrant the sort of legislation we're talking about--especially when that legislation will indisputably harm an already marginalized segment of the population.
I'm not sure about this but my guess is that a man who refuses to abide by an establishment's rule of "no men in the women's showers" would be asked to leave. If he does not leave, he could be arrested for trespassing.
But given direction these new laws are taking, I'm further guessing that the Police should refuse to remove the man and instead arrest the proprietor for discriminating against this man based on his protected status of identifying as a woman?
Having no law at all and all unisex bathrooms is certainly a possible solution. It would be consistent but it would require people to get over certain hangups they may have.
Note that you can still have gender-segregated bathrooms without laws that get down into the weeds of who can use which bathroom. That, in fact, is the status quo in most U.S. jurisdictions. So while I'm not necessarily against unisex bathrooms, doing away with gender-segregated bathrooms isn't really what I had in mind.
>The answer is that there is no need for any legal standard at all.
As evinced by the fact that unisex bathrooms were the norm until the late 19th-early 20th century, and that rest stops and other establishments operate unisex bathrooms without any issue.
The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar.
I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually identifying with a given gender versus some guy who wishes to get into the women's restroom.
A company I have worked for tried this, changing a few single bathrooms from M and W to unisex. The women protested because cleanliness went way down. They went back to M and W after 2 weeks.
That's because habits are hard to change. But give it time (or turnover) and it'd be fine. Have the cleaners come in more often and make sure everyone is responsible for keeping the stalls clean. Education.
> A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with.
The problem with /that/ would be that non-transgenders would possibly feel uncomfortable with that - which I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, is why there's gender-segregated bathrooms in the first place.
The only solution would be, as the other commenter says, to only have unisex bathrooms and to tell anyone that complains about that to fuck off.
> The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations
And some simply can't afford it. It requires a number regular sessions with a psychiatrist, and is difficult to get covered by health insurance. One friend quoted me their estimate of nearly $25,000, just for the surgery alone.
> I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious.
Perhaps you feel it's obvious to you, but do you trust the arbitrary judgement of some company's random employee? What if the employee or establishment decides that this is a case of "some guy who wishes to get into the women's restroom" but the patron disagrees? Should we always implicitly trust the word of the patron? Should a line be drawn? If so, where? Who can we trust as the arbiter of "genuine" gender identity? Is there any criteria that a reasonable person could use to ascertain if someone is using the "wrong" bathroom? Should we even care in any capacity who uses which bathroom?
What about situations where someone with a political agenda intends to deliberately make things difficult by doing their best to straddle the gray area between honest expression of gender identity and calculated abuse of our good faith? What about a scenario where someone's gender genuinely feels fluid and they find that they can identify as both genders at different times?
As an anecdote, I have a trans-woman friend who normally uses the woman's bathroom (without issue as far as I am aware), but who sometimes (when drunk at a bar) has deigned to use the men's room at times when the line to the woman's room was really long. In her own words "why should I make the line longer for women who can't use the urinal when I can be in and out of the men's room in a minute?". We have jokingly accused her of just not wanting to wait in line, and none of us care at all what bathroom she uses, but I could envision a scenario where this behavior becomes very controversial (if she can use a man's bathroom, why should she ever encumber the already heavily trafficked woman's room, some might argue)?
IMO, the best way to go about this would be to just have unisex bathrooms or urinal & stall bathrooms and allow people to use whichever they prefer. I don't see how any system that is contingent on someone's gender can work in this political climate since that requires determining gender in the first place.
The problem with that approach is women don't feel comfortable using the bathroom with a man, regardless of what he claims to be.
So who's rights are more important? The born women's or the born man's?
So then you introduce someone that has female genitalia, but looks from all outward respects to be male (possibly including facial hair if they're on hormone therapy). By law in NC this person is required to use the women's restroom. Does that increase comfort for either of them?
Frankly, while I like being comfortable, one should always think twice before passing laws purely for the purpose of increasing comfort. (Particularly in this case, where the discomfort appears to be far more theoretical than common). When I think of the society my grandparents, or even, heck, my PARENTS found "comfortable", I would feel very sad to live there.
I agree its an imperfect standard -- how could one ever possibly determine what gender a person identifies with for legal purposes? But, if one must come up with some legal standard or other (which we shouldn't), I think GP's suggestion is better than focusing on genitalia or the gender assigned at birth.
Ultimately what makes someone comfortable or uncomfortable in a bathroom is the gender that they perceive others to be. They will usually not know what another person has between their legs, or what gender is written on a person's birth certificate. They just know what they look like and how they behave. And I'd bet that these criteria will better track a person's subjective gender identity than anything else. This is especially likely when one considers the fact that transgender people, like anyone else, will not want to make other people in the bathroom uncomfortable--or to be made uncomfortable themselves.
Edit: Here's another thing to think about. If we're really just worried about who is more uncomfortable, remember that for most third parties in the bathroom, this discomfort will be mild and fleeting. "That was weird, that women kinda looked like a man." But for the transgender person, the discomfort will be deeply felt and repeated daily for the rest of their lives. (Until, that is, they move to a better state.)
What about the trans man who's now stuck in the women's room? Now everyone's uncomfortable. Oops.
Or, more realistically, if your presented gender doesn't match your birth sex, or if you're "weird" and someone feels like challenging you under this law, you now don't have the right to use a public restroom. Just be honest and admit this is your goal instead of cherry-picking a single scenario.
There are laws against speeding, running red lights, drinking while driving, doing drugs, and all types of things that are done every day. Laws are not sufficient.
We could outlaw using meth. But if is legal to sell, import, produce, and store meth. Then it is too easy to break the using meth law.
We could outlaw getting in car accidents. But if it is legal speed, drive drunk, and run red lights. Then it is too easy to break the car accident law.
My point is sure we outlaw harrasement but for those that may want to do that, allowing them to go into a room where women are alone and disrobed would make it too easy to break that law.
This prophylactic argument might be a reasonable one if there were an epidemic of transgender women (or, for that matter, cisgender men) harassing cisgender women in the bathroom. But, instead, it is virtually unheard of. The empirical evidence is that, today, the combination of informal social norms and retrospective laws against, e.g., lewd conduct and sexual assault are more than enough to discipline' people's bathroom behavior.
I would also like to think like this but it is more complex issue.
I see that there are at least 3 aspects: physiological comfort, hygiene and security.
I think that your proposal falls into physiological comfort category but I am afraid that changing personal attitude does not change the other two aspects.
So I would assume that women are a little better off with separate toilets in the given state of the society.
Would be interesting to see any research that tries to answer these questions.
What's the hygiene threat here? Transgender people know how to use the toilet just like cisgender people do.
What's the security threat here? As the now popular meme notes, at least three Republican Congressmen have been arrested for lewd conduct in bathrooms. There don't seem to be any verifiable incidents of transgender folks doing nasty stuff in bathrooms warranting these laws.
Ok, so let me try this again: "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?"
The person in the next stall can be man, woman or whoever. But it actually does not matter who is in the next stall.
What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall.
If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets. The question of the feelings of the transgender people would be a secondary mater in this case.
Now if there would be no risks then I am all for the unisex toilets as combined floor area would make them more practical.
> What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall.
This is already a crime, and one the new anti-trans laws do nothing to combat (unless you intend to require a birth certificate or a pat-down to enter the bathroom).
> If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets.
Then demonstrate that they increase the risks. As I noted, there appears to be a larger risk of lewdness in bathrooms from Republican Congressmen than transgender individuals. There's certainly no epidemic of transgender folks assaulting people in bathrooms. If anything, transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault.
First of, I am not a US resident nor a citizen. Therefore I really do not care about the remarks about Republican Congressmen. Well, mostly.
Second, in my comment I mostly focused on the group who are physiologically women and also address themselves as women, i.e. women. If this was not clear enough, I am sorry.
I did also not mean or write that there is in my opinion an increased risk from transgender people in the case of unisex toilets or that it would increase the risk for the transgender people. I hoped that the meaning was clear enough, I am sorry again.
I am also not arguing against the opinions voiced here like "transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault".
I am not physician and I do not have any court statistics handy, but my hypothesis was that
a) hygiene in the men occupied toilets in general might be worse than in women only occupied toilets and sharing a public toilet with men might raise the risk of infections for women (it is a less problem for men because they mostly use urinal in the public toilets, if this was not clear enough),
b) women may be at higher risk to be sexually assaulted in the toilets shared with men (and please note, I know that this is already a crime).
If you're seeing enough of a transgender person in the bathroom to be able to determine if they're pre-op or post-op, chances are you're the one violating "basic decency" by being a creeper.
I wonder what is the legal basis for having separate bathrooms at all. The separation seems to be a cultural one. Most of us have shared bathrooms with our family. What practical needs does the segregation solve ?
For example, if "penis sighting in the urinal" is a "problem" that the segregation solves, then self-identified gender is irrelevant.
Seriously? I'll give you Africa of course, it makes sense. But the Middle East? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc? All these countries are almost literally wiping their ass with money.
My question got downvoted a lot, but I was quite serious. Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism? And are we just talking about Africa or should the US have higher standards than, say, India, Australia, Italy and Argentina?
> Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism?
here's an example: i think most people would agree that every country should have a strong, maintained infrastructure to support their country's operations. but it is clearly a different situation for an economically challenged country to have bridges in disrepair, than for a rich country to have the same issue despite it having the resources available to it. "higher standards" doesn't necessarily mean "superior".
that said, i'm not completely clear on what the post you replied to was expressing.
if i were to guess, it was about so-called "social progress". north america/europe generally provides a better opportunity for LGBT peoples to live their lives as they see fit than other regions. MENA (such as Saudi[1] and Qatar[2]) have traditionally been seen as decidedly unwelcoming to LGBT, perhaps even supporting violence against LGBT, but this isn't exactly unique to MENA.
MENA's disinterest/lack of "progress" in this area is rooted in cultural, historical and religious norms. as such, it's perhaps "unfair" to hold them to the same standards (achieving "higher progress") of how they treat LGBT people.
I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad?
Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
I think because in many cases porn can be exploitative and can perpetuate stereotypes of aggression in sex and set unrealistic expectations for many people who then develop complexes.
It's a complex issue. On the one hand sex is natural, on the other hand the way it's portrayed can have major influence on how young adults (and even mature adults) view sex which can be loving and consensual to violent and unrealistic. And it can lead some to objectifying people.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out.
I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not.
They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with their business.
> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad.
While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.
I realize that not everyone accepts that pornography is inherently harmful as a medium, and thought to avoid that discussion (which has been going on for longer than we've been alive) in favor of discussing how futile this act of faux solidarity is.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad.
I agree with you, but porn is a small part of the larger problem that modernity presents us with hypernormal stimuli absolutely everywhere. Television, movies, calorie-dense foods, even things like HVAC. Decrying porn without decrying all forms of hypernormal stimuli seems odd.
Pornography is more than hyperstimulation: the messages in pornography are hateful towards women and minorities. Coupling those messages with the reward of orgasm is going much further.
Yes, and like I said, money makes the consent given questionable at best. Threats of violence can also be used to negate consent. Social pressure applies as well. These factors do not disappear in so called amateur pornography.
> plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Do explain. Are you saying the porn industry pushes a certain ideology (e.g. only anonymous-male-on-model sex!1)? I'm pretty sure the porn industry is purely a capitalistic endeavour, as in, whatever sells - and non-traditional (if that's the right term to use) porn happens to sell.
I think the porn jabs at the hypocrisy of it all. Most of these anti-gay groups love to throw stones from their insanely tall horses. They pick and choose from the buffet of sins, and ignore the rest.
Porn is likely something they publicly are against, but i would be honestly impressed if it's something they (in their private homes) are against.
Hell, most of these people can't even stomach "Love thy neighbor". Let alone sins of the flesh.
Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment".
At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.
It may seem like a lack of self-awareness at first, but I'm almost sure this is because NC is one of the states where lesbian porn is among the top searches, according to PornHub's annual map[0].
So really, it's more just xHamster trying to cut down on hypocrisy.
Exactly. Not that it would work, but if you could manage to cut out all porn from NC, it would serve as both a protest against them while also making them suffer in silence. Afterall, i doubt most of these conservative anti-gay groups believe porn is okay - it's an immoral sin, just as being gay is.
As i disclaimed, it's a big if, an impossible if. As much as i'd love to see these people suffer in this uniquely funny way, prohibition never works.
This is only weird if you think that people who hold to traditional religious morality don't watch porn. But of course those people do, a lot, and I'm sure xHamster knows it. So this is more of a "hey dummies, here you are watching porn while you pretend to be moral with your stupid laws."
I see their point, or stance as "protest" but I can't see how this does anything than make those people who saw it fit to pass those laws pleased with the developments.
Those lawmakers will now hope people who run prostitution rings join the protest. Maybe even the bootleggers and...
On the other hand the hamster gets nice publicity out of it, so on balance its probably a net positive for them.
So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ignore physical gender. If that will ever happen.
My concern is two fold. One, for transgender persons, who will fear the reaction they will get every time they enter the restroom. And second, basically any person can claim to be of the opposite gender, and walk in to fulfill a sexual fantasy, even a mild one.
I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population. Especially considering the high rates of mental illness and suicidal thoughts and attempts among transgender persons. This, for now, will only add to that. Do they really need to be subjects in a future study that will show the impact of such laws? Or used as ammunition for 'transphobia' accusations in the media or elsewhere? Will the victims of the first line in the war of imposing a policy in the society be really worth it, especially if that increases their chances of committing suicide?
I'm torn, because I don't really want to dignify this comment with a response... but here goes.
Your 'concern' for trans* people is transparently false, or at least misguided. I don't see how allowing someone to live with their gender identity is 'adding stress' to them: outing someone's trans status by forcing them legally to use the wrong restroom is... itself insane, and in no way 'protects' trans people.
But if you're arguing in bad faith, and are not merely confused... well, please don't try to wrap this up as an issue of concern for trans people; the law compels, it takes away liberty. Claiming it's somehow in trans* people's interests is about 50-100 years out of date: you don't protect people by taking away their rights! That's paternalistic and wrong. And somehow suggesting that the freedom to choose the bathroom of your gender is making people commit suicide... that's your argument, right? Well, I just hope you're being facetious and I'm missing the irony.
> I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population.
I suspect you haven't really been paying attention and are just submitting your gut feeling here. For example, in attempting to prevent your hypothetical "sexual fantasy" scenario, here's one real consequence of this law:
The simple fact is any real problems caused in bathrooms are already covered by harassment laws. These new laws take away a freedom people already had, and I'm not really aware of any real problems caused by people having those freedoms. Are you? What problems have these laws solved? Hypothetical situations don't count.
That a man entering a women's restroom is something to be feared of (!), that a woman's loyalty depends on somebody shielding her from strange men and that a husband's duty is to shield her
this is the stance of the legislators. the point is to show they're fully in the "good intentions paving the road to hell" mode. they didn't want dudes in the ladies' room, so now they have dudes in the ladies' room.
What is "physical gender"? If a person looks like a man, acts like a man, and thinks of themselves as a man, do women really want this person in the women's bathroom just because they were born with two X chromosomes?
How can such a person "simply avoid the psychological conflict" when a law mandates their choice of bathroom based on their genes? The bathroom of least conflict is illegal for them to enter!
This is a totally confused issue. The popular Reddit forum for women calls itself "TwoXChromosomes" but also disallows transphobia. Now, in some people's books, even this equation of having two X chromosomes with being a woman is reductively cisnormative or transphobic.
As gender reassignment doesn't affect genetics, I think the fairest interpretation is to consider that we just aren't there yet in terms of the biology of gender reassignment. But even stating this is unacceptable to some.
What makes that the fairest interpretation? There are trans people who look and act just like the gender they identify with. Letting them use the bathroom of the gender they identify with makes the most sense to me, not only for them, but for everyone else. Saying that genetics are what really matter and you have to use the bathroom determined by your chromosomes just seem lazy, not fair.
I'm not talking about the bathroom issue, but responding to your question about physical gender. I'm in favour of permissive laws about this and similar scenarios.
The bigger problem here is things like so-called TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) in which high profile feminists who display contempt for transgender people are unfairly lumped in with innocent people who
are merely aware of the limitations of current medicine. That discussion (the TERF discussion) is a painful one to engage with. But maybe bringing that problem up is a non-sequitur.
My question was rhetorical, intended to point out the difficulty of even using that term in the first place.
Seems to me that the bigger problem is bigoted legislators who think it's OK to force their religious values on other people, not some group of radical feminists I've never even heard of before and who I'm guessing have very little power.
FWIW, I'm mentioning the TERF label not because it's "radical" but because I think, in the psychological battle for tolerance on all sides, it's near the front line, and it's very emotive.
If you aren't near the front line, in whatever way, I agree that it may seem less important than protesting intolerant legislation.
If your establishment is big enough to have multiple person facilities, you can add a single bathroom as well. Even smaller restaurants seem to have a individual handicap or family washroom. Then label it "toilet" and who cares who uses it.
The whole "men identifying as women in the washroom with little girls" thing is a big red herring rally cry for a very vocal group (based on a single case of a male pedophile who did not id as a woman). So raising headlines against this, regardless if it's judged appropriate, is good as far as I'm concerned.
You're assuming people know what type of genitalia other people in the restroom have.
I don't understand the type of restrooms you use. When I use the restroom I do not inspect the genitalia of my fellow men. I'm pretty sure women don't do that either. If this is happening in the restroom you utilize you need to find other restrooms.
Under your rules someone who looks, acts, and dresses like a man will be forced (by law!) to use the women's restroom. This actually causes all of the problems you mention. I do not understand your reasoning.
> My concern is two fold. One, for transgender persons, who will fear the reaction they will get every time they enter the restroom.
I'd wager that most transgender people who use the bathroom they wish to use are already dressing, acting, and mostly passing for their gender. It's not a tall woman in a skirt walking into the men's room, nor someone with a full beard walking into a women's room.
And I'd also wager that the reaction they get when walking into the wrong bathroom is probably much, much worse to deal with on a daily basis.
"I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender"
Fun story time:
I went to the Santa Cruz boardwalk a few months back with some friends. It was packed and the line for the woman's restroom was massive, so I figured I looked androgynous enough in jeans and a black tshirt that I could get away with using the men's room.
The whispers started immediately after I made it to a stall. "Whoah, did you see that? There's a girl in here!"
Now, by your definition I was using the restroom appropriate to my physical gender (since you seem fixated on genitals or genes or something). I'm also a tiny 5'5" thing and transitioned a decade ago in my teens (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfx0a8fUAAAfsoW.jpg). These men were twice my size, and I was mortified and a little scared.
I did my business and got the hell out. It was a lovely day at the beach other than that.
Anyways, if I lived in NC, I have no idea where I would actually use a restroom if I was out in public. Is that not insane? Why should a bunch of conservative men be able to pass a law and restrict a basic bodily function that we all need to deal with? I'd be stuck having to find gender neutral bathrooms where I could.
> So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women)
i find this phrasing to be curious. perhaps you're only suggesting that it "objectifies women". well, sure - but it also objectifies men. rarely are the chaps more than grunting and thrusting animalistic instruments of sex, are they? i think it's a valuable thing to be aware of objectification and whether we're treating any givern person with consideration, but at the same time, "objectification" isn't some objectively (!) negative abstract bogeyman.
> But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room.
should a female-to-male transgendered person, dressed and groomed and to most people's eye a seeming "biological man" - potentially with facial hair, even - be forced to use the women's room? would this not cause the same discomfort you describe?
> And second, basically any person can claim to be of the opposite gender, and walk in to fulfill a sexual fantasy, even a mild one.
i think fear mongering using unclear, disembodied "sexual fantasy" isn't all that productive of a conversation. it's about on par with "won't someone think of the children?"
> I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population.
not sure i follow - you're saying that someone like Buck Angel[1] would be more comfortable using the women's restroom? that any women in said restroom wouldn't be wondering why a man was in there?
Isn't Washington State (or Seattle) having an issue with this? Men (who are not trans) going into and using the ladies' room?
In the end, you're leaving it up to the person's "feelings" as to where to use the restroom.
Hell, I belong to a gym that has a separate section for women only. How would most women feel if a trans* walked in and started 'working out'?
While I have to agree with individual liberty - live however you want, the question remains how to effectively force other people to accept it, because thats what is going on.
This is all based on the theory that men are sex-crazed pigs anyway. What's wrong with uni-sex restrooms anyway?
Stop building multi-occupant public restrooms with a gender designation, and instead build several single-occupant public restrooms with no gender designation.
Added bonus: Not only do we disarm these attempts to discriminate against transgendered people, we also avoid all the social awkwardness that comes from multi-occupant restrooms. Like the loud person talking on their cell phone. Or the smells of other people doing their thing.
(Retrofitting would be expensive, but don't make that part mandatory.)