Question about the NC Bathroom Law

[LAS14]

Can someone give me a detailed or nuanced explanation of the government’s position on the NC Bathroom Law? I understand that it is not OK to restrict people’s behavior to the gender on their birth certificate. And I don’t have a problem with people using bathrooms based on their social identity (appearance is bathroom appropriate). But what is the government’s position on the possibility of a biological male (a person with a penis) using the women’s and girls’ shower at a public pool?

Please don’t chastise me for attacking a straw man. If this is not a problem, please explain why. The frustrating thing is that what I get on the news (e.g., the clip of the attorney general’s speech yesterday) does not explain the details of the law. It seems that to ask for clarification is to declare oneself a bigot.

TIA
LAS

[MillennialDem]

1. Sorry but it is a straw man. A pre-op or non-op trans woman is not going to use the women's

shower at a pool or gym unless she is a nut job who wants to get arrested or assaulted.

She's going to just shower at home.

[LAS14]

2. But if this person were actually...

... a pedophile, or a voyeur, could he claim that he identified as a woman and avoid prosecution? According to the law. This is a real question. I don't know the answer. Your I'm sorry response sounds condescending to me.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Your question doesn't make sense.

Deliberately exposing yourself to an adult or a minor is already illegal, no matter the location. What additional protection would restricting access to the bathroom afford us?

[LAS14]

9. In my experience,some showers at public swimming pools...

... require people to shower naked. At least the one in my home town did. Likewise showers in schools. So exposing yourself has an implied sex specific quality.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Still nonsensical.

There is nothing about a public shower that necessitates nudity, but for the sake of argument let's take this to the logical conclusion. If young children should not be exposed to the genitalia of the opposite sex, then fathers who take their young daughters into the men's locker room should suffer the same penalty as transgendered people who use bathrooms out of keeping with their assigned sex. The same goes for mothers and their sons.

As long as we're giving weight to personal experience, my family was very involved with the local YMCA when we were kids. Single parents brought their opposite-sexed children to open swim all the time.

And I don't know why you keep going on about pedophilia. Are pedophiles necessarily attracted to children of the opposite sex?

[jberryhill]

53. "Single parents brought their opposite-sexed children to open swim all the time."

Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.

Yes, LAS apparently wants the moms of five year old boys to send them into the men's locker room alone.

Not the best idea I've ever heard.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. It's a downright terrible idea.

Jerry Sandusky didn't dress up like a woman to rape his victims. He just convinced parents to leave their kids alone with him.

[MillennialDem]

7. If this is really a concern, alter the law to allow legitimate trans protections. By legitimate I

mean people who have been diagnosed with GD medically.

That would stop pedophiles and still allow protections for trans people.

The law in North Carolina is about stopping pedos sure, but the main purpose is about punishing trans people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

76. Few points

Transgender persons don't carry around "proof" of their GD and there are some people whom identify as Transgender whom haven't been to a therapist yet and officially diagnosed as such and some have yet to start medical transition (and some whom don't plan on medical transition or whom are unable due to pre-existing conditions or medical issues). Being Transgender is such a subjective experience too that can be difficult for one to "prove" it to another person. That being said, I think that, despite letters or some kind f physical proof, it still would be fairly easy for authorities to weed out the people whom genuinely assert they are Transgender from those whom are simply being obnoxious (i.e. right wing fundies entering the "wrong bathroom" to prove a point) or inappropriate. I would also suggest that most Transgender people- because of risks to their own safety (which has been made worse by NC's law and the current discussion of it)- keep to themselves and aren't out to draw attention to themselves.

[MillennialDem]

77. I'm trans and well aware of many of your points... and some are WRONG

Trans people often do carry around proof of their GD. If they're early in transition, they will often keep a note from a doctor or psychologist in case they're "caught" in the bathroom. I used to have one. Threw it away.

Another way of proof: changes to driver's license (also state ID card, passport, etc). This is usually much easier to change and much more important to change than one's birth certificate. But it's not as simple as going into the DMV - it usually requires a doctor's note again and possibly a legal name change. This is my proof of GD now 13 years later. You think a sexual predator is going to be able to fool a psychologist AND a doctor enough to change their ID - and even though it's technically possible if they want to get their freak on in a bathroom they're not going to arse around with all that work.

I'm also well aware of some who don't engage in transition (or only engage in partial transition). I'm non-op myself, though I've done every other step, including other surgeries in my journey to womanhood. But I have friends who are only doing partial transitions. They use the men's room. Same goes for virtually every person who is early in transition. I didn't show up in the woman's room the day after my diagnosis "Sup ladies, it's all good I'm trans. How are you doing? Trans people that use the opposite of their birth sex bathroom have almost always taken SIGNIFICANT steps in transition silly bear.

As for the fundies abusing the law, sure. In fact I'm in favor of shitcanning the NC law in general, but I'm saying IF we wanted to keep the law that's how we could fix it.

[cleanhippie]

8. The pedophiles and voyeurs are ALREADY IN THE BATHROOMS!!!!

Being a transgender person has nothing to do with pedophiles and voyeurs.

Once you let that soak into your brain and understand it, you'll see that this is nothing more than a ruse by homophobic bigots to justify their bigotry.

[LAS14]

10. I agree that being transgender has nothing...

... to do with pedophiles and voyeurs.~

I guess I need to refine my question. I will do that.

[cleanhippie]

12. Your specific question about a pool shower is nonsense.

It hasn't been an issue before, and it's not an issue now.


This law is all about justifying bigotry and nothing more.

[jberryhill]

31. This law has nothing to do with pedophiles and voyeurs either, FYI

[Separation]

82. I agree

and I will raise you that it also has nothing to do with transgenders using the bathroom as well.

I believe that its nothing more than the right trying to distract low IQ voters like they did last voting cycle with gay marriage.

[mnhtnbb]

22. The argument you are using is based on a false premise--one that is promoted by ignorant people--

that a cis male could turn himself into a trans woman simply by putting on a dress, wig, some make-up and
claim to be trans. So the answer to your question about avoiding prosecution is "no".


People don't just wake up one morning and declare themselves "trans". It is a process that usually involves a great deal
of assistance and support from the medical community. That process leaves 'tracks'--the absence of which--would certainly
not support some pervert's claim that he identified as a woman so he could go in a women's room or locker room and parade
around in the nude.

The argument that is being made by the people who wrote--and support HB 2--is a false flag. Trans women are no threat
to other women. The backers of HB 2 are making up a problem that doesn't exist because they are ignorant and fearful.

There was a very well-written letter to the editor of the Raleigh News Observer, written by psychiatrists/psychoanalysts
that appeared a few days ago. You might want to read it.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article75903077.html

[One_Life_To_Give]

70. One is not trans for 15 minutes

Since it is a core identity there should be lots of corroborating facts throughout their daily experience. Assuming the possibility they are not out at work. There should be ample evidence of routinely spending their off days as their true selves. Including such basic details as the wearing of Makeup, tucking on genitalia, clothing appropriate for their identity. And even during work times the practice of underdressing (wearing items appropriate to their true selves e.g. wearing Panties under male clothes.)

If you know where to look it's not hard to tell the Trans individual from the would be predator.

[pnwmom]

66. Actually, a straight-presenting man did that in a gym here in Washington, and pointed to our law

as his justification.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-president-biden-says-hes-confident-hillary-clinton-will-be-president/

Seattle Parks and Recreation has confirmed an adult male inappropriately used a female locker room at Evans Pool in Green Lake while a youth swim team used the facilities on Feb. 8

Was the individual a male inappropriately using the facilities or a transgender female well within her rights?

“This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was ‘identifying’ as a woman,” Seattle Parks and Recreation Communications Manager David Takami told me via email. “We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.”

At around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, an adult went into the locker room to change. Takami says that at “no time did he verbally ‘identify’ as female,” nor did he request to be treated as transgender.

At the time, a local youth swim team was using the facilities. Young girls and some of their parents “became alarmed” that the male was changing in the female locker room and alerted the front desk staff. Staff members then “asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room.”

He did not accept the offer.

After his swim, he “again entered the women’s locker room to change.” Front desk staff once again asked him to leave “and he eventually did.”

Perhaps complicating matters, a witness who contacted KIRO Radio indicated this male was wearing men’s clothing as he entered the locker room.

SNIP

“In following guidelines laid out by the Washington Human Right Commission, the person did not exhibit a gender presentation or gender identity consistent with gender of the locker room as was asked to leave that locker room,” said Gunner Scott, transgender advocate and former LGBT Commission for the City of Seattle. “A concern I have is if this was a setup by opponents of LGBT equality to try to exploit the recent debate of basic rights of transgender youth, adults and families, as that tactic has been used by these opponents in different states.”

It’s a valid concern and one I fear will happen just to make a point. But that’s another reason parks and recreation failed by not calling the police to report the lawbreaker.

SNIP

[greymattermom]

72. so he needs to be cited

for not covering his breasts in the pool?

[liberal N proud]

3. Here is how I see it - Do you look at other people when you go to a public restroom?

NO, most people do not.
Neither would a trans-gender person. They just need to pee.

[LAS14]

4. That's why I tried to make it clear that...

...I didn't have a problem with bathrooms. That my question was about public showers.

[MillennialDem]

14. Well, public bathrooms are far more common than public showers. And generally public

showers are avoided by trans people as I told you already. If this wasn't about beating up on trans people, why not pass a law regarding public locker rooms and showers but leave the bathrooms alone.

[LAS14]

16. I agree that showers are probably avoided by...

... trans people, but my question is whether the governmentºs position would allow others to shower cross sex for not OK reasons. Would it? I expect the people who are working on this have considered such issues. I'd like to know their thinking.

[MillennialDem]

20. I doubt the government wants cross sex showering (or even bathroom use) for NOT OK reasons -

I don't know if it's best to make a law about showers. But let's assume it's a cis man who decides he's going to shower in the women's at a public pool. He is just taking a shower, not leering at children or wanking.

I don't know if that should be illegal. Socially awkward, sure.

Of course if he is leering at children or wanking because he's 10 feet from naked adult women, he can charged with public lewdness.

[LAS14]

24. Maybe we're getting somewhere.(

My understanding from the media is that by challenging the NC law, which covers showers and changing rooms (anyway, so the governor of NC said) the government would be opening the way to anyone who wanted to claim a particular gender identity to use that shower. Maybe that's not implied in the government's position. I don't know. Maybe we are moving to a society more like some others, where cross sex nudity is not so much of a problem. I'm not there yet. I'd like to know if that's where the law is going.

Anyway, thanks for addressing my question as stated.

[jberryhill]

35. A point you still don't understand

This NC law requires a number of people with penises to use the women's facilities.

Do you understand that? yes or no?

I would also like your view on where a hermaphroditic person should, in your world, take a shower.

[pnwmom]

67. And shouldn't women have the right to undress without a straight peeping tom

observing them?

[jberryhill]

19. Frankly...

My experience at beaches and camping facilities may not be universal, so maybe I need to get out more, but I've not seen any without partitions and curtains.

[LAS14]

28. I don't have recent experience...

... but the shower at my town's pool when I was growing up had no stalls and required you to not wear your bathing suit. And I think that most schools don't have separate stalls. Maybe society is moving toward a more Scandinavian attitude. (I'm thinking saunas.... but maybe I'm only revealing ignorance about sauna culture.)

[IamMab]

6. Unisex bathrooms seem to be the long-term answer. Everybody poops.

And divisions based solely on gender will make less and less sense in a society moving towards acceptance of a broader spectrum of gender than just boy/girl.

[LAS14]

15. I was asking about showers, not bathrooms.

Yes, the MOMA restaurant already has a unisex bathroom. But what about a male with a penis in a public womenºs bathroom? I agree with an earlier respondent that that person would very likely not be transgender, but would that person be protected by law to continue to visit the shower where people are naked? Some (many?) public showers require being naked. School showers do. If a person with a penis wanted, for whatever reason, to shower with women and girls, are they protected by law if they claim (truthfully or not) to identify as female_

[usedtobedemgurl]

11. I think the better question is....

why isn't everyone up in arms about this bill? it has really focused on the whole transgender part but what about all of the other parts? A business can now fire someone just because they are a woman or black and the people have no recourse? How about the fact that anyone can be fired because of their religion? I guess it is fine for Muslims (read sarcasm) but what about when that first Christian gets fired by an atheist? Why are all of these provisions tucked away in this bill? Why would we need them?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. here are my questions to you

1. how many incidences of this is happening that a law needed to be passed about it?

2. if laws around molestation (which are already really stringent) does not stop someone from molesting children in bathrooms, why would a bathroom law (which only has a 6 month jail term) stop them?

3. the law is aimed is aimed at transpeople, because of the birth certificate claim. if laws were created to prevent cisgender men from using women's bathrooms, than that's how the law would/should be written.

[LAS14]

18. I donºt support the law. But neither do I want...

... people with penises in the shower with me or my children... for whatever reason. Your response sounds like, short of molestation, the law would allow such people in the womenºs showers. Note that I am not defending the NC law as regards bathrooms. Using a birth certificate as a criterion is clearly discriminatory in my mind. Iºm asking a question about showers.

[jberryhill]

23. You are 180 degrees from correct

The NC law requires people with penises to use women's facilities.

That's a point you seem to be completely missing here.

The NC law requires this guy to use women's facilities:

[cleanhippie]

27. "But neither do I want people with penises in the shower with me or my children"

Has that EVER been a problem you've been faced with? I'm willing to be that your answer is a firm NO!

And guess what, it's NEVER going to be a problem for you.

[LAS14]

30. It hasn't been a problem.

My question is whether the law would open the door to its becoming a problem. Why are you hostile just because I asked for clarification about an issue that's under public discussion?

[cleanhippie]

33. I'm hostile because your "question" is asinine and clarifies nothing.

It's already crystal clear what the proponents of this law hoped to accomplish by passing it: justify bigotry.

You seem to not want to accept that. Why?

[jberryhill]

42. North Carolina was founded in 1653

Can you tell me what it was that was "becoming a problem" within the last few months of NC's 360 year history which prompted the passage of this bill a few weeks ago?

[cleanhippie]

64. No, your continued obtuseness is causing my hostility.

Have a nice day.

[zazen]

62. it's been a problem for me--I've had guys hang around entrance to bathrooms to hit on me

Hell, at IBMA last year, and I'm middle-aged. It's gone on for years. God help me if he had had the legal right to walk right on in.

Can you imagine the drunk guys in bars who'd walk right into women's bathrooms when they could?

I'd have felt just fine with a transgendered person in there, if I had even noticed. It's predating cis-gender guys I have a problem with, and so does every female who has a history of having been sexually assaulted by one. Our rights matter, too.

I don't want cis-gender guys in my bathroom or shower. I'm all for laws that protect transgender people and that promote gender-neutral bathrooms along with traditional ones. Millennia of violence against women is real and doesn't just go away because some Republicans want to use the issue as a temporary political football.

The maniacs who passed HB2 don't give a crap about violence against women (or women's lives or reproductive freedom.) They folded an outrageous number of discriminatory, democracy-suppressing measures into it too, taking away the local authority from municipalities they claim they traditionally protect.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. no, i am saying that the law is written in a bigoted ways. if the object was to stop cisgender men

than birth certificate should not have been the necessary proof. also, lots of trans women do still have penises for a multitude of reasons, and i am pretty sure you and your precious children have used a bathroom with them, and lived to tell the tale. how often have you and your children showered with someone with a penis before this law was enacted? was this a frequent occurrence in your life and the life of other people?

i literally don't understand where this sudden bathroom showers concern came from

[jberryhill]

41. You know what's really weird?

Maybe you have to be of a certain age, but back when Concerned Women For America was spreading their nonsense about the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970's, one of their go-to talking points was about men using women's bathrooms.

These people have had a bizarre fixation on bathrooms for decades.

[Katashi_itto]

45. Ok, I need to look up "cisgender" have no idea what that is.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. For you or others: 'Cis' and 'Trans' are prefixes from Latin, 'Cis' means 'on this side of' and

'trans' means 'across from, on the other side of'. Other places we see these prefixes include names of places such as Transvaal, which is the place on the other side of the Vaal river and words like 'Transverse' which means extending across something.
In Chemistry 'Cis' means a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on the same side of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are on the same side of the bond.


Happy day!

[Katashi_itto]

75. Cool explanation. Thanks. So cis stands for ?

[LostOne4Ever]

80. Cis means "on this side"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cis-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism

[Katashi_itto]

83. Yeah I understand the chemical breakdown. But In the context of trans?

[LostOne4Ever]

84. Trans is crossing gender, cis is staying on the same side of gender. Change vs staying the same.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Or if you rather think of it another way, all cis means is "not trans."[/font]

[Katashi_itto]

85. AHA! Thanks! ok now it makes sense.

Thanks again

[jberryhill]

17. "If this is not a problem, please explain why."

How often in your life has it been a problem?

I have come to the conclusion that there are quite a few people with an inordinate degree of concern about birth certificates and bathrooms.

The North Carolina law requires that you have your birth certificate in order to pee somewhere. That is insanity. Of course since your birth certificate does not establish that you are the holder of it, you will need a photo ID with a matching name. If you have changed your name since birth, then you will of course need an appropriate paper trail from your birth certificate to the name on your current photo ID.

To pee.

To say that the NC law is batshit insane does not require one to have a solution to the general class of problem of "creepy people doing things in bathrooms they shouldn't". The NC law has no relationship to, for example, the problem posed by male pedophiles in male facilities, such as Dennis Hastert and Jerry Sandusky. It has no relationship to closeted men who engage in inappropriate bathroom behavior, such as Senator Widestance. The NC law bears no relationship to behavior that is socially inappropriate and already illegal.

This is a situation that did not arise as a response to some rash of "creepy people hanging out in bathrooms". It was specifically targeted at transgendered people to require this woman:




to use the men's bathroom.

That is wrong. It is that simple.

To say that is wrong - and it is clearly wrong - does not require some grand solution to every conceivable form of social pathology that is cooked up as a "justification" for something that is clearly wrong.

You do not solve some hypothetical threat by doing wrong to a class of people.

There will be on the order of 20,000 people shot to death in this country this year. Because 14 of them will have been shot by a Muslim man who was born in Chicago, a sizeable portion of the electorate thinks the "solution" to violence is to ban Muslims from entering the country. To say "well, that's kind of stupid" is to invite the question of "Well, how do you stop Muslims from shooting people?" which of course ignores the larger picture of "how do you stop ANYONE in this country from shooting people" as if Muslims are somehow special in that regard.

This is the same sort of distraction from a plainly discriminatory statute by posing an unrelated hypothetical. The "logic" of your hypothetical boils down to "we're going to have to treat a entire class of people like shit because of some potential inappropriate behavior by people who are not members of that class in the first place."

In the meantime, the vast majority of perpetrators of child sexual assault will continue to be their own parents, relatives or caretakers. So if your concern is child sexual assault, why not take the more statistically effective approach of removing all children from their parents, relatives and caretakers, and placing them with total strangers, so they will be safer.

[LAS14]

21. As I tried to make clear in my OP, I donºt support the NC law...

... for reasons that you cite. But I do have a question. So far no one has addressed it. Itºs not even a question about what is right or wrong or desirable or undesireable. It's a question about the government's interpretation of the law. I'd hoped to get the kind of detail I'm not getting from the media. See my respons #18.

[cleanhippie]

25. The DoJ sued NC for violating the Constitution with this law.

THAT'S the Governments interpretation of this law: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Got it now?

[LAS14]

32. No. I was asking a little bit more complicated question.

Is the government claiming itºs unconstitutional to exclude people with penises from women's showers if the person claims (for whatever reason) to identify as female? You probably don't know the answer, but what's your guess? Yes or no?

[cleanhippie]

34. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick! People with penises in the womens shower?

Are you ok? You sound unhinged.

This is not a problem for you or anyone else. Nor will it ever be.

[jberryhill]

40. HB2 DOES NOT "EXCLUDE PEOPLE WITH PENISES FROM WOMEN'S SHOWERS"

Can you explain to me in what way HB2 "excludes people with penises from women's showers"?

It excludes people with birth certificate designations from using a non-matching bathroom.

There are people whose birth certificates say "F", and who have penises.

There are people whose birth certificates say "M", and who do not have penises.

Why do you think this law has ANYTHING TO DO WITH PENISES?

[jberryhill]

26. " It's a question about the government's interpretation of the law."

What, specifically, is your question about "the government's interpretation of the law" and which government are you asking about.

The US government's position is that this law specifically discriminates against transgender individuals.

The US government's position is correct - this law does that.

So, what, specifically is your question about "the government's interpretation of the law"?

Your question seems to be "does the US government have the solution to some unrelated social pathology?" No, and let me clue you in to a depressing fact - there will always be people who do wrong things.

However, this law is not designed to address molestation in bathrooms. It does not, in fact, have that effect. It's sole purpose and effect is to discriminate against transgender people. That is "the government's interpretation of the law".

Perhaps you might more clearly state your question and specify WHICH government you are talking about, and what interpretation you are having difficulty understanding.

[LAS14]

36. See my response #18 and read the OP again. I don't...

...support the NC law. I'm not addressing bathrooms. Just showers and changing rooms.

[jberryhill]

39. I read your post #18

It is quite clear that you do not understand how law works, because there is nothing in there about "interpretation of the law".

In order to determine that a law is discriminatory, then it is not required to "solve" some unrelated hypothetical.

Why don't you sit down and write a non-discriminatory law about keeping creepy people, of any gender identity, out of the showers.

It is not the job of ANYONE in the legal system to write laws. That is the job of a legislature. However, when a law is discriminatory, then it gets struck down regardless of whether it had some "benefit" under some hypothetical set of facts.

Again, if the state of North Carolina banished all Muslims from the state of North Carolina, and was effectively enforced, then it is pretty much certain there would be no Islamic terrorism there (not that there's been any, mind you).

That's a discriminatory law.

You do not then come back and say, "Okay, then how would they prevent Islamic terrorists from setting off bombs in Asheville?"

The primary impact and burden of this law is on an identifiable class of people who are doing NOTHING WRONG. It is a discriminatory law. If you want to have a law requiring partitions and curtains in public shower facilities, then your problem is solved WITHOUT having to shit on an entire class of law abiding people.

Do you see how that works?

[jberryhill]

29. I read your post #18

I do not see a question about "the government's interpretation of the law" in your post #18.

I see your statement that you don't want people with penises in women's facilities. The NC law does not keep people with penises out of women's facilities. So I don't see how your question relates to this law, which has the sole effect of examining birth certificates for bathroom admission, and has nothing to do with genitalia of anyone in any bathroom.

[LAS14]

48. We may be getting somewhere.

You're right that it does not keep people with penises out of women's facilities. Interesting point. But it sounds to me like the government's position may invalidate existing laws that do keep them out. But maybe not. That's why I posted the question. The more one thinks about it, the more complex it gets.

Note I repeat that I do not support the use of birth certificates as a means of determining who can or cannot use showers and changing rooms. (I do not have a problem with bathrooms). I currently feel that I would like to exclude people with opposite sex genitalia from showers and changing rooms. But maybe society is changing to a more Scandinavian sauna view of the world.

[jberryhill]

51. what laws are these:

"But it sounds to me like the government's position may invalidate existing laws that do keep them out."

Please point me to these existing laws.

You seem to believe that there are such laws. In general, there are not. Because, as pointed out above, if a mom at the pool wants to take her five year old son into the women's locker room to shower, instead of sending him into the men's locker room alone, that has been pretty NORMAL everywhere for a long time. You want to criminalize NORMAL behavior.

A lot of social behavior is governed not by law, but by social convention. Extreme violations of social conventions are generally pursued under the catch-all of "disorderly conduct".

While the formulation varies, "disorderly conduct" laws deal with a wide swath of inappropriate behavior which the actor knows or should know is likely to cause offense and alarm.

We have managed to deal with bathrooms for a long time as a society without such laws as you seem to think exist. If someone is causing a ruckus in the showers at your public pool, there have long been ways of dealing with it that do not involve any laws at all. It is this absence of laws, and the moderating forces of social convention, that have long allowed people to use the bathroom with which they identify, to the utter oblivious inattention of people who are using facilities for their intended purpose.

But, please, go ahead and tell me about these "existing laws" which you believe would be somehow invalidated by the observation that tying bathroom use to birth certificates is a fucking stupid idea that is only targeted to discriminate against people who were bothering NO ONE prior to HB2.

Since we are making progress, and you reference "existing laws" which you feel will be "invalidated", it is your burden at this point in the discussion to identify these "existing laws" about which you are concerned.

Absent your identification of these laws, then you are not discussing law, you are making shit up.

The "existing laws" deal with such classification as "lewd behavior in public" or "disorderly conduct". The "existing laws" are intended to address "people who are causing a problem" and not "what's on your birth certificate".

Do you understand the difference between laws addressing status as a person, and laws addressing conduct?

One could just as easily point at what you are saying and exclaim - "You don't want to do anything about male pedophiles molesting boys in male facilities" - because that entire subject doesn't seem to concern you, even though it is much more common and real than your fixation with penises and who has them.

[littlemissmartypants]

38. Calling HB2 the bathroom law does little to foster an honest conversation

About the bill and the ramifications therein. No offense but that title barely scratches the surface of the serious threat to national civil liberties this abominable law creates. Please consider this:

The bathroom issue is important but the wound here cuts deeper and broader. We should be terrified of the nefarious social stew HB2 serves up for all citizens not just the LGBT community. You can read the entire law in PDF FORM here:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjT6P2148_MAhXGFj4KHRLeCLEQFgg_MAs&usg=AFQjCNEwjZWfcuI0l8Ef4ZRRFlxp0d2eQA&sig2=gYrv__PIYveXnL0FelL_QA

[LAS14]

49. You're right about the name.

I didn't like "the bathroom law", especially because I wasn't asking about bathrooms, but I couldn't think of anything else that would be generally understandable. Now that I see HB2, I realize I've heard it, but not often, which underscores your point.

Again. I don't support the bill. I tried to make that clear in my OP.

[cwydro]

46. I'm sorry, but you sound just like the right wing idiots in my state

who have caused this whole mess.

I have never had a problem with men in the women's bathroom or in any showers I've used.

Any gym showers etc always have stalls, and I have NEVER heard of any place that mandates people to shower naked.

What nonsense.

[LAS14]

50. We need a culture where it's OK to ....

... ask a question without being pigeon holed as a bigot. Re read my OP and read my response #18. In some other response I explained that I don't have recent experience, but my city's swimming pool required nude showers and had no stalls, and I think that's the norm for high schools. But at least your observation addresses my question. Thanks for that.

[jberryhill]

52. Someone causing offense and alarm in a public shower is engaging in disorderly conduct

Why do you believe the disorderly conduct laws, public lewdness laws, and the various other catch-alls which have been used for decades to address the circumstances of your concern?

This is California Penal Code Section 647:


Section 647: Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor

(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view.

(b) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, they manifest an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that act. As used in this subdivision, "prostitution" includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.

(c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms.

(d) Who loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any unlawful act.

(e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place,whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.

(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that they are unable to exercise care for their own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of their being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.

(h) Who loiters, prowls, or wanders upon the private property of another, at any time, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant. As used in this subdivision, "loiter" means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.

(i) Who, while loitering, prowling, or wandering upon the private property of another, at any time, peeks in the door or window of any inhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant.

(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, or camcorder, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments..

-----

Do you notice that the sections I highlighted do not single out a class of persons for disparate treatment?

[Orrex]

54. I for one have never been under the influence of toluene in a public place.

But I don't know about all the rest of you toluene freaks.

[jberryhill]

55. Oddly

Huffing toluene makes me inordinately concerned for the safety other others, so I'm okay in California whenever I do.

Except on those occasions when I find a public shower and start singing the "Do your ears hang low" song while swinging from the ceiling with my six foot long penis tied to the overhead plumbing.

[Orrex]

56. I think I caught your act in Pasadena

You don't disappoint, that's for damn sure.

[jberryhill]

59. The Rose Bowl Parade really inspires me to greatness

Next year, I think I should get my own float.

[jberryhill]

60. Do you want to arrest mothers who take their young sons into the women's shower? yes or no?

[Orrex]

47. Your last sentence suggests that you've found a way to give that clarification.

Bravo.

[3catwoman3]

57. When I was in high school, we were required...

...to shower after gym class. Big group shower, that must have had at least 20 shower heads. Totally starkers. There were 3 or 4 private stalls that were reserved for those who had their periods, and the gym teachers kept track of that by marking a little "M" next to our names in their attendance log so they could make sure no one was taking unfair advantage of the private facilities by reporting a never ending menstrual cycle.

You had to line up at the half door into the gym teachers' office while the marked all the little letter Ms beside the names. I remember how much I hated having to stand in that line while they took names, as I did not wish anyone to be privy to my bodily functions. Very humiliating.

It didn't occur to me until many years later, that they might also have been monitoring for girls who stopped reporting their cycles, to be on the lookout for those who might be pregnant. This was in the late 1960s I'm pretty damn sure schools could no longer get away with this type of invasion of privacy.

I will admit that it would have felt most awkward had there been someone who identified as female but still had male genitalia in the locker room.

[B Calm]

61. Why do republicans confuse going to the bathroom with sex?

[haele]

63. The Government doesn't get involved unless there's a complaint.

I've used a men's restroom when there were no available woman's stalls and an empty men's room. Likewise, I've seen men go into a woman's room to use the stall and quickly leave in a bathroom emergency.
It's really been up to the venue for "gender enforcement". The only time there seems to be issues is when there's a stalker situation where a guy follows his prey into the restroom, or a temper situation where a woman has followed a guy into the restroom to pick a fight.
Excuse me for shouting this but in my 50+ years and having been pretty near everywhere in this country, IT'S NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL TO USE THE RESTROOM OF THE OPPOSITE GENDER.
Not even in schools. Not in pools or gyms. Not at concerts.in bars, in restaurants, in stores - nowhere. Because a bathroom emergency always trumps the illusion of privacy in public, and that's the only reason to mark genders on the doors. The markings on the door are there to provide a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.

Even when I've seen them standing by the restroom door, I've never, never seen police (or rent-a-cops) arrest someone for using the "wrong restroom" unless someone directs their attention to a potential crime. I've never heard of children being suspended for using the wrong bathroom in school unless there's been a behavioral incident or complaint.

I have heard of stalkers following potential victims into restrooms to harass, injure, rape, or murder. But they don't waste their time going to the extreme of dressing up as or pretending to be the opposite gender to get into some sort of "Fortress of Solitude" that certain people seem to think public restrooms should be.
And there's less than a 1% chance that some creep with a mental problem is going to go to the trouble dress up in like a shoplifter in a Jane's Addiction video and stand for hours outside a girl's restroom at a community center to flash his thing every time some parent or councilor isn't watching to make sure there's no weird adults hanging around the little kids.
The whole issue of gender-marked bathrooms really is a straw man to say "I don't like those people, and don't want them to be out in public. Unless you have gender markings on the bathrooms at your house, there should be no reason to fear mixed gender use of restrooms in public. After all, not all restrooms in public are marked for gender; I've been to quite a few places (especially small businesses, bars and restaurants), where there's only one bathroom, and you have to get the key to use it. No one complains about trans-genders there, do they?

Haele

[Nye Bevan]

65. The government's position is that whether or not you have a penis,

if you identify as a woman you should be permitted to use women's restrooms and locker rooms. For example, Caitlyn Jenner has a penis but obviously should be allowed to use women's facilities.

[LAS14]

68. Analysis of the post.

Of the 13 direct responses to the OP, 6 didn't notice that I explicitly excluded bathroom use from my question. Two didn't notice that I explicitly said I did not support the use of birth certificates. One directly attempted to answer my question. Nine criticized me for asking the question.

If we want to reduce rather than exacerbate tensions surrounding transgendered people, it would be good to treat people with questions with respect rather than otherwise. Assume that a question is a request for information until proven otherwise.

The government did answer my question last week. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107133580 if you want to hear more of my thoughts. Warning - this is in the Hillary Group. Disagreements are fine, but ad hominem replies are not.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. That 'anaylsis' is very self serving.....

I will say that the Hillary Group, home of the Reagan Was An AIDS Activist Theory, is a suitable place for this sort of materials.

[Orrex]

79. Citation, please.

the Hillary Group, home of the Reagan Was An AIDS Activist Theory

Please post (or send me) the link to that discussion. I would be very happy to refute it in-thread.

Thanks!

[usedtobedemgurl]

78. Your post is important....

because when you exclude the bathroom part, I believe you are trying to get people to see there are other awful parts to this bill. I assume you are alluding to all the other nasty bits they included such as now being allowed to fire someone because they are black, or Hispanic, etc.... Or being allowed to fire someone because of their gender. AND being able to fire someone because of their religion. (those nasty (sarcasm) Muslims) People have no idea what a ball of hate this piece of legislation actually is. It seems to discriminate against everyone but angry white men. The whole thing needs to go away.

[alarimer]

71. A transgender woman has never attacked anyone in a bathroom.

It's all bullshit. Fear for a non-existent problem.

Furthermore, simply using a restroom of any kind (as long as you are not doing anything to anyone else) is a non-issue. Who really fucking cares where they go, so long as that is all they are doing?

[LAS14]

81. I excluded bathrooms from my question. And how do you..

... know I'm afraid, simply because I wanted to clearly understand the government's position. See post #68.