FL Bill Would Criminalize Transgender People Using Single-Sex Public Restrooms

[ThePhoenix]

The EEOC just came down with a decision saying that an employer requiring trans* people to use the wrong restroom is a violation of Title VII.

[Dee Marshall]

What would happen if a business (any business public, private, retail, etc.) would have just multi-user unisex restrooms. There would be no case for discrimination or violation of the law.

Many governments have laws in place requiring a male and a female restroom, some even if it's single user. America, at least, is nowhere near ready for that step. We have a good deal of growing up to do, first. Think about it, the argument against us, stupid as it is, is that some men will pretend to be us to get access to female children. Do you honestly think people that think like that are going to go for ALL men having to use the same bathrooms as women do?

[mac1]

Many governments have laws in place requiring a male and a female restroom, some even if it's single user. America, at least, is nowhere near ready for that step. We have a good deal of growing up to do, first. Think about it, the argument against us, stupid as it is, is that some men will pretend to be us to get access to female children. Do you honestly think people that think like that are going to go for ALL men having to use the same bathrooms as women do?

I believe that it would be even less of a problem with multi-user unisex restrooms than with sex specific multi-user restrooms.
You would tend to have more people in the restroom at any time and the chance of a predator being alone with any vulnerable
individual (woman, small man, child) would be less likely.

Any predator who desires to attack women or girls in the restroom will not be stopped by a single sex women's restroom and
the women will be more likely to be alone.  Also, what about young boys and small men being alone with a predator in the
men's restroom?

You never hear much concern about women sexual predators attacking either men or other women.  They do exist
but nobody seems to be concerned.

Also, you occasionally see women using the men's restroom and nothing is ever done about that.

[skin]

I believe that it would be even less of a problem with multi-user unisex restrooms than with sex specific multi-user restrooms.

Logic doesn't matter with this topic. There is no way the majority of Americans wouldn't balk at the idea.

[mac1]

I believe that it would be even less of a problem with multi-user unisex restrooms than with sex specific multi-user restrooms.

Logic doesn't matter with this topic. There is no way the majority of Americans wouldn't balk at the idea.

I think that they would adjust to it and possibly prefer it.  Possibly it could begin as an option and be expanded from there.
Nobody seems to have a problem with women using the men's restroom. Why should it not be the same for men using the women's restroom?

The multi-user unisex option would accommodate everybody without exception and result in lower space requirements, elimination of specialized and duplicated facilities, reduced costs, equality in number of facilities, concern about caring for young children and others requiring assistance, equalized wait times, etc.

[BenKenobi]

The thing is that requires money and most places really aren't willing to shell out that much for such a minority of people. I mean, dang, they barely take care of the current restrooms.

[suzifrommd]

I think that they would adjust to it and possibly prefer it. 

Maybe. The principal impediment is that few have that much comfort with telling people what they should want and imposing it on them.

[DrummerGirl]

Really good news everyone!  Apparently, this bill is very close to being dead.  The Judiciary Committee never put this bill on their agenda for the past two sessions, and they have no plans to have any more.  That essentially means that unless they call a special session or the contents of this bill get amended to another bill, it is pretty much dead.  There have been a lot of rumors the past month that this bill would have been voted down by the Senate had it gotten that far, and that is the reason the Judiciary Committee Chair gave for not allowing it on the agenda.

[BenKenobi]

Huzzah! The power of procrastination triumphs once more!

[Kova V]

Really good news everyone!  Apparently, this bill is very close to being dead.  The Judiciary Committee never put this bill on their agenda for the past two sessions, and they have no plans to have any more.  That essentially means that unless they call a special session or the contents of this bill get amended to another bill, it is pretty much dead.  There have been a lot of rumors the past month that this bill would have been voted down by the Senate had it gotten that far, and that is the reason the Judiciary Committee Chair gave for not allowing it on the agenda.

Isn't that how government passes all our bills? Hides a bunch of small bills inside of the big one. That way politicians can be sneaky and lazy and get paid a bunch of money all at the same time?

[DrummerGirl]

Isn't that how government passes all our bills? Hides a bunch of small bills inside of the big one. That way politicians can be sneaky and lazy and get paid a bunch of money all at the same time?

The bathroom bill would have to be attached to another bill that deals with the same chapter of law, but supposedly there is only one realistic choice and the sponsor of that bill has publicly stated that she would not accept amending the bathroom bill to her's.  I won't post a link due to TOS, but the Capital News Service has a nice blog on the subject.

[iKate]

I think that they would adjust to it and possibly prefer it.  Possibly it could begin as an option and be expanded from there.
Nobody seems to have a problem with women using the men's restroom. Why should it not be the same for men using the women's restroom?

The multi-user unisex option would accommodate everybody without exception and result in lower space requirements, elimination of specialized and duplicated facilities, reduced costs, equality in number of facilities, concern about caring for young children and others requiring assistance, equalized wait times, etc.

I think it should be an option but I don't like the idea of a mixed gender restroom being the only one available.

Let's face it, men's restrooms are disgusting. Men stand up to pee. Men pee on the floor. They pee on the seat. Male pee smells. It's the testosterone and is probably that way to mark territory.

In our men's restroom at work, men will leave perfectly good urinals to go pee in the stalls. Standing up. I kid you not. They then pee up on the seats. It's disgusting.

This, I believe is the major reason for restroom segregation by gender. It really has nothing to do with sexual predators. It has everything to do with bathroom habits and cleanliness.

Every women's restroom I've been in has been cleaner than the men's, in places where I've had the opportunity to see both. The one exception is Jo-Ann craft store, but that's because men typically don't go in that store! The only bad thing I've seen in a women's restroom is used pads and tampons, as well as used pregnancy tests being flushed down the toilet and clogging it up. Otherwise give me a women's only restroom any day.

Of course, I think there should be an option for a genderless restroom, for family and non-binary people who prefer to use them.

[rachel89]

Are transsexuals really Florida's biggest problem. If they had any concern about public safety they would ban creepy guys from owning windowless vans

[BenKenobi]

Are transsexuals really Florida's biggest problem. If they had any concern about public safety they would ban creepy guys from owning windowless vans

This is assuming that their concern is "safety" and not "ew I don't wanna share a potty with 'THEM'"

[DrummerGirl]

According to an article on advocate.com, State Rep. Frank Artiles (author of the HB583 bathroom bill) confirmed that the bill is dead.  IT'S DEAD!!!!! Well done everyone!

[mac1]

This is assuming that their concern is "safety" and not "ew I don't wanna share a potty with 'THEM'"

Safety doesn't come through separation or segregation. It can be increased with a increase in numbers as the likelihood of being alone with a pervert would be lessened. Just a case for multi-user unisex public restrooms, changing rooms, etc.

[BenKenobi]

Safety doesn't come through separation or segregation. It can be increased with a increase in numbers as the likelihood of being alone with a pervert would be lessened. Just a case for multi-user unisex public restrooms, changing rooms, etc.

That's not the context of the response