Controversy Emerges Over Gender Identity Laws

[FairyGirl]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104829

Legislation incorporating gender identity protection has ignited debate among activists for gay and lesbian rights, with some arguing that the legislation actually endangers women and threatens their physical safety, while others contend that gender identity protection is key to obtaining equality for the LGBT community.

"The proliferation of legislation designed to protect 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' undermines legal protections for females vis-à-vis sex segregated spaces," wrote lawyers Elizabeth Hungerford and Cathy Brennan, in a response to a call from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women for communications regarding "alleged violations of human rights that affect the status of women in any country in the world".

Sex-segregated spaces, such as public bathrooms, are necessary for females especially due to the "documented frequency of male sexual violence against females", Brennan and Hungerford wrote.

See also the actual lawyers' response, here:

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/

This definition of "gender identity" does not require any objective proof.  Rather, it merely requires the person seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.  Further, because Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex, a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid "discrimination" must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen "gender identity" – without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to "become female" (i.e., sex reassignment surgery.)

The other states that have adopted protections based on "gender identity" have similarly broad definitions that not only incorporate stereotypes about males and females into law, but also allow any one asserting claim to a "gender identity" – including non-transgender and non-transsexual people – to invade all space rationally segregated by sex.

[Julie Marie]

I wonder how many documented cases of male born persons, presenting as females, entering a woman's bathroom and attacking a cis-gendered female are on record?  I think these opponents of trans protections need to include that in their defense.  I'm sure they can find at least one occurrence.  At least their fears wouldn't seem so irrational.

But then the proponents will most likely point out the fact the perp actually wasn't trans.  Then they're back to square one.

It would be interesting to know how many transwomen these lawyers have shared a bathroom with and never knew it.

FWIW: I have no problem with some sort of validation to prove one is trans.  Something as simple as a doctor's or therapist's letter would do it.  Many of the T-girls I have met had one just in case.  It's called a "carry letter" and it's sole purpose is to validate one's transgender status.

[FairyGirl]

I wonder how many documented cases of male born persons, presenting as females, entering a woman's bathroom and attacking a cis-gendered female are on record?  I think these opponents of trans protections need to include that in their defense.  I'm sure they can find at least one occurrence.  At least their fears wouldn't seem so irrational.

the list:

http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms

[Epi]

Gender-neutral family bathrooms should be everywhere.  They're not only beneficial to a parent out with a child, but to individuals who don't feel comfortable in gender-segregated bathrooms.  I don't understand why more places don't have these.

[Nemo]

the list:

http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms

Oh, yuck - it's times like this I feel ashamed to be male

Actually, because of that I'd be the first to insist on some proof of ID (DL, carry letter, etc). Although it's been proven time and again that it's not the cis-women in danger of assault in bathrooms - it's the poor trans-women

Gender-neutral family bathrooms should be everywhere.  They're not only beneficial to a parent out with a child, but to individuals who don't feel comfortable in gender-segregated bathrooms.  I don't understand why more places don't have these.

+1. My old workplace had gender-neutral bathrooms - that's the one aspect of that building I miss. Although using the gents around people who either know about me or read me as male sure helps my confidence in that area.

[Lily]

Sex-segregated spaces, such as public bathrooms, are necessary for females especially due to the "documented frequency of male sexual violence against females"

...sounds very similar to...

Race-segregated spaces, such as public bathrooms, are necessary for whites especially due to the "documented frequency of black violence against whites"

I see no difference. It's just simple prejudice as usual.

[tekla]

I don't understand why more places don't have these.
Money and law.

In lots of places how many of which kind of bathrooms have to be there per hundred people is a matter of building codes, and the codes are broken down along sexual lines.  x amount of men's, x amount of women's.  That kind of sexual segregation is built into the code itself. Older buildings tend to get grandfathered so they don't have to comply - UNLESS they change something, which is why most pre-20th century buildings have so few women's rooms in the first place.  The greatest push for unisex really came from the fact of the ADA which made it much easier just to build one handicapped accessible rest room, as opposed to having to build two.

Secondly, every bathroom costs money.  It costs to build it, it's wasted space for the most part, every flush costs (particularly out West), and you have to replace stuff and pay to clean them.  So businesses want to keep it down to the required minimum.

[Sarah B]

I personally would prefer separate bathroom facilities.  However, I'm aware of the following point of view and agree with it. 

Sex-segregated spaces, such as public bathrooms, are necessary for females especially due to the "documented frequency of male sexual violence against females"

...sounds very similar to...

Race-segregated spaces, such as public bathrooms, are necessary for whites especially due to the "documented frequency of black violence against whites"

I see no difference. It's just simple prejudice as usual.

There have always been sexual perverts and the list just confirms that and if anybody performs an "inappropriate act" according to the law and are caught doing so, will face the consequences. 

I would think twice about what Elizabeth Hungerford and Cathy Brennan say.  According to this this thread Cathy Brennan & Elizabeth Hungerford take their anti-trans hysteria to the UN they certainly have an agenda.

Warm regards
Sarah B

[Epi]

I don't understand why more places don't have these.
Money and law.

In lots of places how many of which kind of bathrooms have to be there per hundred people is a matter of building codes, and the codes are broken down along sexual lines.  x amount of men's, x amount of women's.  That kind of sexual segregation is built into the code itself. Older buildings tend to get grandfathered so they don't have to comply - UNLESS they change something, which is why most pre-20th century buildings have so few women's rooms in the first place.  The greatest push for unisex really came from the fact of the ADA which made it much easier just to build one handicapped accessible rest room, as opposed to having to build two.

Secondly, every bathroom costs money.  It costs to build it, it's wasted space for the most part, every flush costs (particularly out West), and you have to replace stuff and pay to clean them.  So businesses want to keep it down to the required minimum.

I know of a government building in the state that has been repeatedly sued by disability groups for not providing any access into the building for disabled person; ramps, assisted open doors, etc because of a lack of funds.  (They would have disabled people schedule appointments and meet them outside or at another building.)  They were found to not be in violation because they were providing some form of accommodation (meeting the person outside if they had made an appointment.)

I would assume the same would apply in this instance, there would be no issue if they provided adequate accommodations.  But it seems our laws do not lay out guidelines for what would be adequate accommodations, which is disappointing.  Having changing stations for children in bathrooms and/or handicap stalls should be a required accommodation, but it's not.

I also cannot understand why anyone would be required to carry around a note from a doctor so they can use a public restroom.  You don't have to identify yourself to strangers and if they persisted, that's not only harassment, it's disturbing the peace.  Unless a law enforcement officer detains you in a public restroom, don't give any personal information to anyone!

I think I'm going to stick with urinating in public, it sounds much safer.

[tekla]

I know of a government building in the state that has been repeatedly sued by disability groups for not providing any access into the building for disabled person; ramps, assisted open doors, etc because of a lack of funds.  (They would have disabled people schedule appointments and meet them outside or at another building.)  They were found to not be in violation because they were providing some form of accommodation (meeting the person outside if they had made an appointment.)

The law reads 'reasonable accommodation' - what that means is up for grabs, and there are a lot of people who have made a cottage industry out of such suits.  One facility I work at put in a very elaborate raised deck and little elevator so people in wheelchairs could sit.  This despite the fact that there was seating already provided, and also any person who was in a wheelchair and wanted to be up front (because only losers staff hang in the back of a concert) that would be provided for.  To date, now 3 years running, the expensive deck and elevator has never been used because no one who would need it wants to be in the back.

Also, it may be that the government building in question might no have to answer to the courts.  Many do not, it's a seperation of powers deal, like how Congress does not have to follow OSHA standards.


You don't have to identify yourself to strangers and if they persisted, that's not only harassment, it's disturbing the peace.  Unless a law enforcement officer detains you in a public restroom, don't give any personal information to anyone!

However, I'm willing to bet that most of the bathrooms people are talking about are not public (in the sense that they are in government facilities), but on private property.  And that's an entirely different matter.

[Epi]

However, I'm willing to bet that most of the bathrooms people are talking about are not public (in the sense that they are in government facilities), but on private property.  And that's an entirely different matter.

Businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone, but if you're already a paying customer, unless they refund you, for all intended purposes it should be assumed they're committing fraud.  If the business was closed to the public and available by appointment only (or had posted signs specifically stating their policy on paying customers ONLY using their restrooms,) then yes they can restrict who uses their restroom, but a private person shopping in a public mall or one of the many store employees can't demand you identify yourself or produce documents that proof you are the gender you present as.  (You're not shop lifting, you're using a restroom that is accessible to the public.)

The laws are very clear about what disturbing the peace is and someone pestering you, harassing you, challenging you, yelling at you or insulting you over being in a public restroom because they perceive you to be something other than what you are is guilty of that offense.

Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
and fine:
   (1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
   (2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
   (3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

[BunnyBee]

So the idea here is that the only thing stopping hordes of creepy perverts, intent on sexually assaulting or exposing themselves to women in restrooms, is that, as yet, there is no legal loophole allowing them into women's restrooms?

[tekla]

Pretty much.

[cindianna_jones]

You will note the list is one of perverts around the world and does not include dates. Yes, there are perverts. Let's see a list of perverts in comparison. There would be tens of thousands of incidents on the list.

I have no problem prosecuting the perverts.

Cindi

[tekla]

I could have come up with a more perverted list just using prominent Republicans.

[Kate Thomas]

I could have come up with a more perverted list just using prominent Republicans.

Throw in a few men of the cloth  on top of them.

[Julie Marie]

In that clip on TS-IS Liberation, a woman could have done what the first "perp" and not caused the same reaction.  The second was "spotted" but I have to ask by whom?  A phobic, uptight bigot?  The third fails to say how anyone knew the alleged intent of the accused. The fourth, obviously a perv, didn't even enter the women's bathroom.  And for the last one, we have a special place for him in the cuckoos nest, where it's doubtful anyone will diagnose him with GID. 

I could have come up with a more perverted list just using prominent Republicans.

Throw in a few men of the cloth  on top of them.

I think that would bring a smile to both parties, but some might insist on a change of position.

[tekla]

Well we know that we won't catch any of 'those male Republican types' in the 'woman's room' - for sure on that, they tend to be far more interested in molesting your son than your daughter.

[TheAetherealMeadow]

This is all so ridiculous. These bigots seem to think that if a man assaults a woman in the bathroom, that him claiming to be trans will get him off free. Do they not realize that assault is a crime, regardless of gender identity laws or not? The only thing this law does is make it safer for trans and gender variant people.

By the way, this doesn't only apply to trans people. I do believe that men should be allowed to use the womens' bathroom. This video about a feminine presenting man's experiences with bathrooms says a lot.


If some violent bigoted thug was to see Greg in the men's bathroom, it's not like he would be like, "Oh, you're not a trans woman? You're just a flamboyant gay guy? Okay then, I'll leave you alone." That's not how it works. If you are a feminine presenting person, and a thug finds out that you're MAAB, that's a dangerous situation, whether you are trans or not. Violent thugs don't care about your identity. Therefore I believe men such Greg should be allowed to use the women's bathroom for the sake of their safety. Really, I think the simplest solution would be to do away with gender segregates spaces altogether.