Georgia ACLU director resigns over transgender fight
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The head of Georgias ACLU chapter opened a new rift in the debate over restroom rights this week when she stepped down in protest of the civil rights groups support for controversial efforts to let transgender people use the restroom that matches their gender identity.
Maya Dillard Smith said Thursday she resigned because she was met with hostility when she questioned the organizations stance on the policy, adding that she risked being branded a homophobe by even raising her critique. There are real concerns about the safety of women and girls in regards to this bathroom debate, Dillard Smith said in an interview. It seems to me that instead of stifling the dialogue, we want to encourage a robust debate to come up with an effective solution.
Many Georgia conservatives have aired similar concerns, but Dillard Smith adds a prominent liberal voice to the mix. She said shes had misgivings about the bathroom debate since her young daughters shared a restroom in Oakland, Calif. with three transgender women with deep voices.
My kids were visibly frightened. I was scared. And I was ill-prepared to answer their questions, she said. Ive been asking those same questions, and now I want to raise an honest conversation about them.
Read more: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/02/georgia-aclu-director-resigns-over-transgender-fight/
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)n/t
dark forest
(110 posts)crap
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)n/t
dark forest
(110 posts)wrong turns
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)Cuz, you'd be correct.
BumRushDaShow
(128,947 posts)Really?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh fer Christ sake....
What's to be scared of????
Questions? Here:
I thinks she's full of it. Deep voices! Yikes! I guess she was scared of Bea Arthur! How prepared do you need to be to tell a kid what "transgender" means? I wonder if they were just in drag.... not transgender. Any idiot knows the difference.... or should if they're the head of the state ACLU.
Besides the law being just the religious right freaking out for losing the gay battle, it's also a smoke screen for other dreadful, but not as spectacular legislation.
yardwork
(61,604 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)are not comfortable sitting on a toilet, with a wide gap around the stall door, in plain view of strange men.
Triggers.
Maya has not only commonsense, she also has respect for women's right.
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)She is a girl. She has always been one, we just didn't find out until she was 3 yo.
So please, stop calling trans women & girls "men". It's the sort of over-the-top rhetoric that gets trans people beat up and killed.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)There is no excuse for bigotry.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Just because you are trans doesn't give you carte blanche to be a sexist ass.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)That should be expected.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)into typical anti-female rhetoric.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)very sloppy in using misogynistic terms.
But, and this is the sad truth, but the b-word does not carry the same stigma as the n-word. Its still used quite liberally(pardon the pun) in the larger culture, even by women.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)And that is the case in the example provided.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I absolutely hate this redefining of women's rights to exclude Transwomen. People need to get that TERF shit off this board.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)THANK YOU!!!!!
THANK YOU!!!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)"real women" by doing a fucking genital check? Seriously what the fuck is the argument here? Its not practical, not enforceable in a non-offensive way, its a bigoted policy, and this bigotry extends to every non-gender conforming individual out there.
There are plenty of people out there, cis-gendered or not, who do not have the "right" look that conforms to their gender, or are completely androgynous in appearance. And you know what, that shouldn't fucking matter when they go into the bathroom of the gender they identify with. I frankly don't give a shit, I go in there to do two things, take a quick piss, or a quick dump, and in both cases, I'm in and out as quickly as possible and avoid eye contact with anyone else in there with me. lol
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)THANK YOU!
You know why!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)3-4 to let it stand, a post saying those who transition are mutilating themselves. Completely and utterly unacceptable. Frankly I'm surprised he acted so swiftly, whether it was my post, alert and ATA post that did it, don't know for sure, but I've been pissing in the wind for so long, I'm surprised this didn't blow back onto me. lol
I was *this close* to creating yet another call out post, but I thought this time, I'd follow the rules, and holy shit, it worked!
Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #17)
Post removed
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't think that we can trust the veracity of something coming from a site that juxtaposes "transgender activist" and "biological male", since the only people I've seen using that language are transphobic bigots.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)my beef was over the trans person calling the other woman a bitch
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)This ACLU person is a terrible bigot, good fucking riddance, if a trans woman calls her a bitch, that's too bad (you are aware that trans women aren't men, yes?)
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)unexpected place. Please don't come smacking me about for some projected agenda. And yes, MTF trans are woman, and neither women nor men do anything good by calling a female a bitch, as that is fundamental misogyny.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and being called a bitch is a lot less bad than being called a potential sexual predator? "I'm against trans women using women's toilets because rape"? I am not at all surprised that the response that gets from some trans women is "wow, you're a stupid bitch". (Maybe you should email Ms Courtney-Evans and demand that she use non-gendered insults?)
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)fancy my chances.
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)Sorta like the N-word. We can use it but men can't. And so, if you are saying the trans woman can't use it, perhaps you should check your own (trans)misogyny.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)For better or worse. If you are going to say trans women can't, well, that's a pretty good example of trans-misogyny.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)To continue down the path of modifying the body to match the brain?
Cancer, heart disease, shortened life span...and who knows what else. The only organizations providing the research are the groups who will make money off of your child's decision. Progressives balked when the tobacco industry provided the research for the long term effects of smoking. We discount when the oil and gas industry does climate change denial research. But somehow it's ok to go with the research from the companies and doctors (like WPATH), who'll make a lot of money off of a lifetime of hormones or testosterone that kids struggling with gender will have to continuously purchase when they choose this path.
It's a lifetime commitment to change one's body to match one's brain. How I wish we lived in a world where it wouldn't matter what or who you wanted to play with as a small child, or which colors you gravitated toward or how long you wanted to wear your hair or whether you liked skirts or pants, whether you wanted to kiss a boy or a girl. Do it. Live it. Don't mutilated your body because of that.
I don't know your child's age of course, but I ache for those gnc teenage kids making decisions that would render them sterile by choice...heck we think they're too young to vote, too young to drive, too young to drink...
I wish your family great peace. I truly, truly do.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)fun fact, a male to female trans person will have a longer lifespan than they would if they hadn't transitioned. Ask Jan Morris about that shorter lifespan (she's going to be 90, this year). Roberta Cowell lived to be 93. You should learn what the fuck you're talking about, really.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Is called anecdotal, not research.
It's amazes me how quickly your side of debate goes to hostile and cursing. If you don't think a lifetime of hormones or testosterone has any negative effect on ones body well good on you
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)More than 2000 patients from 15 US and European centers participated in the retrospective study, called Comorbidity and Side Effects of Cross-Sex Hormone Treatment in Transsexual Subjects, and nearly 1600 received at least 1 year of follow-up, the authors reported.
"Our results are very reassuring," principal investigator Henk Asscheman, MD, PhD, who heads HAJAP, his clinical research company in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News. "There are mostly minor side effects and no new [adverse events] observed in this large population."
Speaking at ICE/ENDO 2014 last week, where he presented the initial results of the research, Dr. Asscheman said the data confirm findings from smaller studies published in the past decade.
"The take-home message," he said, "is that when using the guidelines from the Endocrine Society ["Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons"], you are not going to see a lot of comorbidities with cross-sex hormone treatment."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827713
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)Would you also tell a diabetic that she shouldn't commit to a lifetime of insulin injections?
Also, by far most of the research into the subject has been done outside the realm of pharma. It's primarily been neurology, developmental biology, genetics and endocrinology. That last one is where the pharma comes in but guess what? Estrogen has been off-patent for decades. There's no money to be made on it, which is why there are shortages when factories are deemed more profitable making some newer drug.
what or who you wanted to play with as a small child, or which colors you gravitated toward or how long you wanted to wear your hair or whether you liked skirts or pants, whether you wanted to kiss a boy or a girl.
Those have nothing to do with it. There are gay and straight trans people. There are both femme and butch transwomen - and both butch and femme trans men, exist too!
Just like everyone else.
So please, you owe it to yourself to read up on the biology and the medical aspects beyond whatever sources you've been depending on. Hormone therapy has been shown to be safe and effective, and not by some mysterious "industry shills".
Thank you and I hope you find peace as well. Because the world is changing. But trans people are not a threat to anyone else in the rainbow.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It's not a risk. I was assaulted and raped as a girl and I wouldn't give it a second thought. I would not feel endangered.
I've also never seen a big gap around doors that you could actually see anything through other than a little motion. Unless you stood with your eye glued to the crack.
I don't think transgender women are interested in looking at other women on a toilet.
Being gay, transgender, or straight does not make you a pervert.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)The law doesn't care if your gay, transgender or straight as long as you obey the law. You only become a pervert (sex offender) by committing a crime considered a sex crime. The designation of those vary by state and local ordinances. And "intention" to commit a crime (while in the bathroom) is itself in many states, grounds for arrest. Oddly enough, most state laws do not contain specific laws/language that says it is illegal to enter a restroom opposite one's gender(up until states like NC). Therefore, you do not break the law if you enter a restroom OPPOSITE your gender just by merely crossing the threshold, it is your intention for doing so and what you do when you get there that gets you arrested. If your intention is to harm your bathroom buddies in some manner, it doesn't matter which bathroom you use, you are committing a crime. That is when the law takes effect. And this is why the claim that allowing transgender people to choose the bathrooms they feel comfortable in, is a legal green light for straight men to CLAIM they are transgender in order to enter a women's room or locker room IS ABSURDLY FALSE. If these straight men are entering to oogle/harrass or cause harm to any woman or child, THAT IS, HAS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE ILLEGAL.
yardwork
(61,604 posts)The Republicans who took over NC won't listen, intent on being bigots as they drive my state off a cliff.
I hope Roy Cooper is our new governor.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)using the same bathrooms?
Seriously, Transwomen are women too, they have the same right to that bathroom as you do.
Don't use whatever malfunction or hangup you have as an excuse for your transphobia.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The restrooms in my old National Guard armory had no stalls, just toilets, urinals and sinks. It was built in the early 1970s. Nothing seperated you from someone using the toilet next to you. Thus was apparently done to fit more toilets into the restroom. Thus in some restrooms you can see other people's private parts.
I mention this for you are assuming all toilets are in stalls, and I am just pointing that is NOT always the situation.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Educate yourself.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Legally, individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender and that anybody who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with an individuals rights can be prosecuted.
Couldn't an unsavory male take advantage of that circumstances? How could they be legally prevented from doing so?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or something? Its illegal to harass, sexually assault, intimidate, and act lewdly in public bathrooms now, you don't need a law that ultimately will require a genital check at the door to make sure its enforced.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He was just taking a shower, as any person normally would. He just happened to be using the female locker room to do so. There was no harassment, intimidation or lewd behavior of any kind.
The girls on the swim team (who were minors) who had gone into that room to change and shower after practice were just uncomfortable because an adult male (who presented as male, according to the article) was using those facilities.
Could or should there be any recourse for a situation like that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)can't fault the law for the ignorance of the people who should be enforcing it from failing to enforce it.
In addition, what about those who appear androgynous? Should they just avoid all public restrooms and show facilities?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)From Lamdba Legal:
A: There is no rule that a person must look a certain way to use a certain restroom. This kind of gender policing is harmful to everyone, whether a transgender person, a butch woman, an effeminate man or anyone dressed or groomed in a way that doesnt conform to someone elses gender standards. Moreover, courts have increasingly found that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination.
For instance, in Mathis v. Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8, Colorados Division of Civil Rights found that denying a transgender girl access to the womens restroom at school was discrimination. They reasoned, By not permitting the [student] to use the restroom with which she identities, as non-transgender students are permitted to do, the (school) treated the (student) less favorably than other students seeking the same service. Furthermore, the court rejected the schools defensethat the discriminatory policy was implemented to protect the transgender student from harassmentand observed that transgender students are in fact safest when a school does not single them out as different. Based on this finding, it is no longer acceptable to institute different kinds of bathroom rules for transgender and cisgender people.
http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq
Without question, transgender people ought to be able to use the restroom with which they identify.
I am just suggesting that there ought to be a way to prevent cis-males from taking advantage of this for nefarious purposes. It is not clear how this can be accomplished, assuming the cis-male in question is not harassing anyone or behaving in a lewd manner.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if they are in there to harass, assault or stalk others, those are against the law. Not sure what other "nefarious" purposes you are talking about.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Numerous movies throughout the 1980s and 90s have been predicated on this premise.
The nefarious purpose would be to see females in various states of undress. That would not require any harassing, assaulting, or stalking. One would simply need to do one's locker room business and casually glance around as others are also changing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)To cisgender gays and bisexuals in similar circumstances.
Perhaps everyone should be blindfolded, or have only private stalls, if practical. But, and this is key, this argument was used to support DADT as well.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Again, I am not making any argument against transgender individuals using the bathroom that conforms to their gender identity. I am just wondering if there is a way to prevent cis-males with nefarious purposes from taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps no such means of doing so exist. Or perhaps there is a potential solution that could be worth considering that does not violate anyone's rights. I just can't figure out what that would be.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)It went into detail about that particular circumstance, so I was sharing my thoughts on that situation.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Granted such people aren't noticable, so it really does come down to appearances.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Raise our children to not be such prudes about sexuality and nudity...to not follow in the footsteps of their parents.
We are an unbelievably prudish country with all kinds of sick ideas about sex, nudity, and morality, based on religion.
Some of the responses in this thread freak me out.
I grew up as repressed as everyone else (maybe more so), and my Mom could not even talk to my sisters and I about sex. She couldn't even talk to us about getting pregnant out of wedlock (which she did with my little sister). Sex was just taboo in our house. And I was molested by my step-father and never felt safe going to Mom and telling her what was going on and it ruined our family dynamics and my relationship with my Mom. She finally kicked me out at 18 because I was so "angry" all the time. I told her later in life and we worked out our issues pretty much, but she still, till the day she died, could not face talking about bodily things like sexuality.
As an adult I forced myself to confront my issues with nudity and sex, and I even had the courage at one point to go on a camping trip with my then boyfriend and his friends to a nudist hot springs in the mountains in Colorado (it was a very cool place). I got naked in front of stangers in broad daylight, and it was both intimidating, embarrassing, but also freeing. I wish to hell we could get over this hangup.
yardwork
(61,604 posts)Trans people are much more likely to have been raped and assaulted than cis people. Forcing trans people to use the bathroom that might match their genitals - but not their gender identities - puts trans people at real risk for assault, rape, or murder.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)More women and girls have been raped in this world than trans folks.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)yardwork
(61,604 posts)As I stated, trans people are much more likely to be victims of assault than cis people.
I hope you aren't suggesting that their rights don't matter just because there are fewer of them?
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)As you certainly would see in the words I am typing.
You're certainly not suggesting that the women and girls who've experience acts of violence don't matter because they are a mere percentage of a much larger population.
More natal girls and natal women have been victims of rape and assault than have trans folks.
I stand by that statement as a means of putting the violence against women and girls that does occur in this world on a daily basis into numerical perspective.
A conversation addressing safety for all should not be banned or discouraged. A fair solution, that's all I'm advocating ~
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Do you have proof of this?
yardwork
(61,604 posts)There are no cases of trans people attacking women or girls in bathrooms. None.
Trans people aren't the problem.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)yardwork
(61,604 posts)Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)I find it interesting that the media doesn't report that in April of 2015, shortly before leaving Oakland to take the interim ACLU director position, she and her daughters were baptized Catholic. Considering the Church's stance on issues like women's equality, LGBT equality and the way their hospitals promote making medical decisions based on dogma rather than best medical practices as per the American Bishops, - oh and that the Church calls transgender people a threat to humanity equal to nuclear weapons - I don't consider her a "liberal" at all.
It's a crucial fact that's missing and explains much, as it would pit her religious beliefs against transgender people's equal access to public accommodations.
http://stcolumba-oak.com/bulletins/20150405.pdf
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)Those like her have convinced themselves they aren't bigots, yet they are nothing but.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It relates to the Time Magazine article referenced down thread.
Someone who is a man (identifies as a man, presents as a man, is not transgender) can use a female locker room with open showers for inappropriate reasons (i.e. to watch females shower), and legally that man cannot be asked to leave the bathroom (assuming he simply uses the shower like anyone else) since asking someone to prove their gender identity is, by law, discriminatory and not legal.
In fact, in the Time Magazine story, which references a situation in NYC where a man reportedly did exactly that, there was a sign saying individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender and that anybody who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with an individuals rights can be prosecuted.
So, what, if anything, can be done under those circumstances to prevent a man from attempting to take advantage of this situation?
yardwork
(61,604 posts)Until NC passed their law, it was never illegal for the "wrong" sex to be in a bathroom. It is always illegal for anybody to harrass or assault people.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Just a cis-male using the female lockers. According to the article he was not harassing or assaulting people. He was just doing normal locker room business with a towel around his waist as the girls on the swim team in question entered to change and shower.
yardwork
(61,604 posts)This has nothing to do with trans people using locker rooms.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Due to the directive about not being able to ask people for proof of their gender identity. That's how the situation relates to trans people using locker rooms. This person was apparently not a trans person but in order to ascertain that, the staff felt they would be in violation of the law. Note that a trans person was interviewed in the article and expressed concern with the situation as well.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)You said: "Someone who is a man (identifies as a man, presents as a man, is not transgender)" and then "since asking someone to prove their gender identity is, by law, discriminatory and not legal."
One isn't required to "prove" anything in that situation. If an employee asks, "Are you female?" and he answers "No." then he is in the wrong bathroom. From what I gathered, they didn't even ask him. If he answers, "Yes" but there appears to be a problem the person is lying, then the law will need to be corrected in a way which will address those type of situations, how ever rare, because, it appears it is the rare cases which have too many people cowering in fearmongering.
What I find troubling, is the TERF mentality and use of "natal" by people pointing out exceptions, not what is actually happening (not referencing you). There will always be ways to get around laws, some legal, some not. It is the legal ways, loopholes, which need to be addressed, but the rights of the many don't need to trump the rights of the few.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Presuming that the male is simply going about normal locker room business and not harassing anyone in any way, there would be no way to ask him those questions without being in violation of the posted instructions.
It just seems like this is something worth addressing.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Was it a state owned facility?
If it was private, then whoever runs the locker room can make rules for their facilities. No?
And of course no one has to undress as long as the jerk is there. Is not sitting around waiting for young girls to undress a type of harassment?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They said, in a statement, that they followed the relevant NYC laws on the subject.
In terms of changing/showering somewhere else, one of the parents indicated that the only other option was a family restroom that only had a single shower head (there were 18 girls who needed to shower).
sendero
(28,552 posts)... "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" (which I 100% agree with) analogy, someone is "worried" about who goes into what restroom?
Trust me anyone out to molest a kid or somesuch doesn't care about piddly "which restroom" laws, period and end of story.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Fuck her.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)in fact that's precisely how you're using it. Stop. Don't bring that hate here. People are discussing a complex issue.
Let a conversation happen.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)a white-supremacist that felt that "Klannie" was a slur thrown about by "ni**er-lovers."
Can you deduce the point I'm making?
Also, there is no right of equality for bigoted opinions in the public square and no necessity for any hearer of them to consider them to have conversational, intellectual or rational merit. We have no obligation to let such a conversation happen.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)...or hearing rational concerns of safety as relates the non-trans element sneaking in under the trans umbrella.
You want what you want when you want it. The opinions and concerns of women and girls be damned.
Got it. So progressive.
BTW, It would be bigoted if I followed with something like "and I don't like trans people"
I have not.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Transgender people are the next acceptable target, if you aren't helping to defend them, you are part of that problem. Not to mention you do NOT stand for that avatar you choose to carry on this board. Its an insult to both Hillary and the LGBT community.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Fuck them, they don't deserve a "conversation", they deserve derision, scorn, and shaming for being the trans-phobic bigots they are.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Who angrily dismisses the quiet concerns of girls and women.
Natal girls and women's safety doesn't matter. Their voices must not be heard.
This is progressive?
Disagreeing doesn't make one a bigot. Disagreeing and wishing harm toward an opposing view certain seems to be bigoted though.
Why do you wish harm toward natal women and girls? Or do you just wish harm to anyone who disagrees with you?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Of course I believe in fair and equal treatment for all.
But what about the concerns of natal girls and women?
Don't their concerns matter as well?
Transferring the vulnerability felt by trans folks onto natal girls and women is not a fair and equal solution.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)due to the passage of bills that protect transgender people?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019
Transgender people are more vulnerable in bathrooms than cisgender people, whether male or female.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Have you heard of ANY trans-woman, any, who has sexually assaulted other women? I haven't. You are spewing bigoted stereotypes portraying trans people as pedophiles and sexual deviants. You sound like every other histrionic authoritarian using "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" as an excuse for BS.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)are trans-exclusionary radical feminists. So thanks for outing yourself as a bigot!
cynzke
(1,254 posts)The problem is the way laws are written. I read a Time Magazine article about a girl's swim team in New York who were afraid to use the woman's locker room because it was opened to transgenders. It was not that these girls were afraid of transgender people, what they were afraid of was men posing as transgender. There was a report of a bald man with heavy beard and mustache showering in the woman's locker room and the attendants interviewed for the TM article told the reporter, they knew about this man but the law tied their hands. They supposedly can not confront the man and force him to prove he has a legal excuse (transgender) for being there. To question his gender status is considered discrimination. So is this man actually transgender or is he merely taking advantage so he can shower/share a locker room with naked women? Seems that these laws need adjustments that address these loose ends. This seems to be the case when laws are written. They are too generalized and sometimes cause more problems than they solve. But we end up butting heads when we should put our heads together and find ways to solve problems and protect everyone.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)You can't question someone on their gender identity. That is private and up to them, and them alone to decide.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)to enter women's bathrooms. And that is a very scary thought - to have a rapist enter the women's room while you are sitting on the toilet with your privates exposed.
Or maybe I am just a predatorphobe.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Girls from a swim team in New York Citys Upper West Side are too scared to use the womens locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool. In March, a sign appeared noting that everyone has the the right to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their gender identity or gender expression. Around the same time, the girls, who range in age from about seven to 18, became concerned after they saw a bearded individual in the womens changing room.
They are now using the family changing room to change in and out of their swimsuits, but it is not big enough for all 18 girls.
The complexity of this situation reveals some of the struggles that public institutions are facing as they implement policies that aim to ensure the rights of transgender individuals. And now these issues are about to go national. On May 13, the Obama administration warned public schools that they must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify.
Even in states that have had more progressive gender identity policies in place for a while, like New York, unforeseen headaches have arisen. Not all restrooms are alike. A bathroom with individual stalls that offer some privacy, for example, is different from a locker room or changing room. A locker room in a school is different from a changing room in a public facility such as a recreation center or local pool, which people of all ages use at the same time.
http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom-laws-worry-parents/
It goes on to identify this situation:
An employee at the center who spoke on condition of anonymity says the individual using the locker room appears to present as a manwearing swim shorts or trunks to swim, with sideburns going down into a beardwhich is partly what alarms the girls and their parents. Staff members have also been warned that asking individuals to prove their gender identity would be discriminatory. Our hands are tied, the worker said.We cant say anything about it.
The sign posted outside the locker room in March that affirmed the right of anyone to use the facility that corresponds with their gender identity also noted that individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender and that anybody who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with an individuals rights can be prosecuted.
That does seem problematic, doesn't it?
yardwork
(61,604 posts)This is nonsense. The man should be told to leave the women's room. This is a smokescreen.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He is not identifying as transgender, but the staff at the facility were instructed with the following directions: individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender and that anybody who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with an individuals rights can be prosecuted.
How would they be able to remove that person without violating those instructions?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Seems obvious. What is the issue again?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Presumably, if a cis-male is using the female locker room for nefarious purposes they would have no compunction about lying about their gender identity.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What do you want done? Should all people who don't stereotypically fit the look of their identified gender be banned from shower and locker rooms, along with public restrooms? I knew a woman who had bad ovarian cysts, and the hormonal treatment gave her a 5 o'clock shadow every day. She tried to hide it with makeup, but honestly, she could have passed for a hormonal male teenager if she dressed even slightly tomboyish.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That seems like a reasonable concern.
Let's take it as a given that we both agree that everyone should be able to use whatever locker or bathroom that they feel fits their own gender identity.
Would you agree that adult cis-males ought not to use the same changing rooms as teen girls, and that said girls would have the right to feel uncomfortable with such a scenario?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)are uncomfortable around others, and its on them to deal with it.
Not to mention the showers should have some private stalls to change in, if they are that uncomfortable.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I just realized we are going back and forth on two different subthreads, so I'll simply continue our discussion on that other subthread if you are still interested in doing so.
I appreciate your taking the time to discuss these questions in such a courteous manner and hope that you take them in the spirit that they are intended (which is in no way to denigrate the absolute rights of transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their gender identity).
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)but even if he was, if he was not doing anything to "frighten" the girl, like watching them undress or acting creepy or aggressive, I don't see the problem.
We need to come into the present time and stop this foolishness with fear of nudity and sexual inhibitions.
There are other countries where for generations, men and women have shared public baths.
If you go to a nudist beach here, are you afraid of being molested or raped? No...people who go there are just free of the hang-ups that most of us have grown up with in the US.
It's time to stop raising our children to be prudes.
Yes, you need to teach your children to be alert to anyone who might be a rapist or sexual predator, pedophile, or even just a flasher.
But people who are not acting that way, are not the problem. Our repressive culture is a lot of the problem.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But the article indicated that he presented as male, so it is certainly possible that he was a cis male. I think it is reasonable for a girl to not want to change in front of an adult male, even if they aren't doing anything to frighten them. Some girls might be comfortable with that, as you describe, but others may not, and I think their discomfort also ought to at least be considered.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Maybe he/she wore male swim trunks in public to hide an obvious presence of male genitalia.
He/she did not have a beard. He/she had heavy stubble. Maybe he/she hadn't shaved for a couple of days.
Neither of those things make he/she a probably CIS.
Their discomfort might just be a teachable moment. But for as long as this country is so full of prudes about sexuality and nudity, there are ways that this can be dealt with that do not discriminate against trans people, like setting apart a time in which the locker room is only accessible to the young swim team for use, no adults can enter (except maybe their coach or center employee, if a woman).
The Time article covered this a little.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)of discrimination against a transgender person if you confront someone who you have a "reasonable" suspicion is not who they claim to be and whose behavior may seem threatening, aggressive or inappropriate, like deliberately exposing their genitals, excessive staring at other occupants, foisting unwanted attention on others. The anti-discrimination ordinances apply to the establishments where these areas are located but these laws don't specifically apply to private individuals. As a private individual, you are not legally obligated to comply with these ordinances at the risk of sacrificing your own safety. If you have a reasonable concern about your safety, I would think it is ok to challenge someone who you think is there to harm you. Dressing or looking weird of its self is not a reasonable excuse to challenge someone. It must also include a tangible threat.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)If the law says ANYONE claiming to be female must be allowed in. The law is clear about the self reporting nature of compliance. You can't ask for id....you can't point out a beard or a moustache. It's specifically self reported.
The very solution for the violence and vulnerability experienced by transwomen has transferred that vulnerability onto natal girls and women.
And we're not allowed to talk about it because you'll be called a conservative bigot.
yardwork
(61,604 posts)It is always illegal to harrass or assault people.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom-laws-worry-parents/
So the person hadn't shaved that day, and maybe even the day before. Not a beard and mustache.
And wearing male swim trunks may be just to hide the obvious presence of their genitalia in public.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)in the future, when considering applicants for high level positions in the organization.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)They're already not that uncommon in spaces and communities where bathroom access has been a long-standing concern.
Most often, they take the form of "single-occupant" restrooms (usually also doubling as "family" restrooms. e.g. a bathroom where you can lock the door and change your newborn on the changing table while the toddler uses the potty.) or unisex multiple-user restrooms set up with private walled-in stalls (with doors that fill the whole door-frame) around a lobby/commons with sinks, mirrors and other bathroom accoutrements, such as the one at The Smith in NYC pictured below.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mean, is there all of the sudden a huge rash of assaults in bathrooms of cis gendered people I'm unaware of? Why is this now brought up as an issue?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I suspect that in less than a decade, in most places, there will be no Men's and Women's bathrooms, just a bathroom.
The reason why most opponents oppose transgender citizens in bathrooms is an antiquated and wrong-headed idea of what defines gender confused with religion.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and just now saying that transgender people shouldn't be punching bags, there's all of the sudden this concern about the safety of cis-gender women and girls.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)They can't stop it, only slow it down.
But it doesn't make it easy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)look at one of the posters here who describes those who transition as "mutilating" their bodies. Its deep seated transphobia that seems to be fueling these bills, under the guise of protecting the privacy and/or safety of cisgender women.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)to follow their narrow minded rules.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Gundamentalists have threatened to take their guns to Target restrooms, but Target no longer allows guns.
Just exchange "homophobia" for the made-up word "hoplophobia" and she's in business, crusading for the civil rights of guns!
truthisfreedom
(23,146 posts)End of story, really.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)"Girls have vaginas,boys have penis's"
Who would have ever thought that would end up being hate speech...
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I'm just throwing it out there, if your education on gender ended in kindergarten, there's no use in attempting to educate you further.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)some white people were uncomfortable using the same fountains as black people. Some folks are not good at adapting to change.
Response to AntiBank (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed