Guv strikes state's gender-specific restrooms

[Natasha]

Guv strikes state's gender-specific restrooms

Link
5/29/2008

"With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a
Democrat, has struck gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms
statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by
predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual
male," according to a critic."

[Terra]

On one hand I celebrate that Colorado has put forth such a bold law. On the other, it's broad striking of the gender line is worrisome. I know that some guys will take advantage of this.

But it is a good step in the right direction, let's see if it can survive the ensuing political storm though.

[Sandy]

On one hand I celebrate that Colorado has put forth such a bold law. On the other, it's broad striking of the gender line is worrisome. I know that some guys will take advantage of this.

But it is a good step in the right direction, let's see if it can survive the ensuing political storm though.

Which guys?  And if they would how would having a law against it have stopped them before?

[tekla]

"or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," pretty much covers all the bases there.

[NicholeW.]

Good grief, yet again, the "religious Attila's" are attempting to find the most hot-button point of people to spread fear and distress about what may be a worst case to push their own prejudices and mistaken identifications of those of us they are hating-on to the general public. Reminiscent of the "abortion on demand" arguments that perfectly healthy and normal babies were all going to be cut apart two days before natality if we allowed women the right to choose abortion.

(It's the ongoing demeaning of women, if you ask me, by these suited bilge-rats! Women are 'naturally' immoral and 'naturally weak and unable to protect ourselves' and we need THEM to show us the right way of going about things.)

More fear of the ridiculous.

Was there an actual concern that pedophiles, rapists and others of the sort were going to be actually running into women's rooms (notice for some reason these morons never worry about men's rooms?) we would all already be being checked at the doorway before we were allowed to pee.

Nichole

[mickiejr1815]

in my experience, "normal" heterosexual males want nothing to do with going in to the ladies room. they go do their business in the men's room. but i'm worried about this law as heterosexual males should not be allowed in men's room, they have no place there as far as i am concerned unless, an emergency  deems it necessary which is usually highly unlikely.


my two cents....
Warrior Princess,
Mickie

everyone like dr. dobson will be against protection and equal rights for us, they's rather have us on the streets....some Christians

[tekla]

"The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and 'public facilities of any kind.'

I hate to tell him but I've been changing in co-ed spaces in the theater since I was about 6 years old.  Massage parlors are not exactly models of decorum for the most part, and those that are have nothing but private rooms, as for mortuaries, gee, that's kind of morbid thinking.

[NicholeW.]

everyone like dr. dobson will be against protection and equal rights for us, they's rather have us on the streets....some Christians


Love the sinner, hate the sin. Better we spend a bit of time on the street than eternity in Hell. If street life is tough enough, we'll suddenly get over things like gender-dysphoria and homosexuality, and the truly criminal excesses they are so allegedly concerned about.

They're the way they are because they have to save us, luv. Sos we can send in lotsa money to Jimmy Dobson sos he can live like god meant him to. 

N~

[tekla]

They, Dobson and his ilk, are losing, and they know it.
They are desperate, and we know it.

The numbers are off, the cycle of 'conservative' political crap is over (now we get the liberal crap again) and they are looking at a wholesale electoral debacle and seeing a lot of what little they got done over the past 20 or so years being tossed out the window. 

[Terra]

On one hand I celebrate that Colorado has put forth such a bold law. On the other, it's broad striking of the gender line is worrisome. I know that some guys will take advantage of this.

But it is a good step in the right direction, let's see if it can survive the ensuing political storm though.

Which guys?  And if they would how would having a law against it have stopped them before?

I was thinking jerks who would purposely take advantage of this law. At least before it might have been vague if they actually could or could not. But I can just see this being an issue in school locker rooms now that schools can not keep hormone crazed teenagers from doing stupid stunts like peeking on each other. I just feel it is to soon to celebrate as there is always fallout after these kinds of things.

I wonder how much of this is in reaction to the 8yr old transgirl that is now going to school?

[NicholeW.]

They, Dobson and his ilk, are losing, and they know it.
They are desperate, and we know it.

The numbers are off, the cycle of 'conservative' political crap is over (now we get the liberal crap again) and they are looking at a wholesale electoral debacle and seeing a lot of what little they got done over the past 20 or so years being tossed out the window. 

I think very little is because of one eight-year old. And the school problem was a problem when I was in elementary, middle and high school. IT would happen occasionally that someone of one sex would 'peek' into the bathroom of the other sex, just to see.

I don't think that the concern here is at all about children. The concern of the legislature is that productive human beings are being disallowed from educational, business and employment opportunities due to unreasoning prejudice. Good for them.

I believe tekla got down what's going on with the other side in a concise and accurate nut-shell.

N~

[Alyssa M.]

Bill Ritter, you rock!!!!

And to think this happened in the state that's home to Focus on the Family ... and Ted Haggard!

[Kt]

On one hand I celebrate that Colorado has put forth such a bold law. On the other, it's broad striking of the gender line is worrisome. I know that some guys will take advantage of this.

And what could those guys possibly do that could actually HARM a woman in a women's bathroom? Stalking, Rape, it's all already illegal. Peeping is not real harm, and probably establishments in CO will install bathroom stalls the correct way from now on, with no cracks or gaps. Besides, if they don't want to be peeped at, or stared at funny, or ridiculed, they could always do what many transgender people do now, and hold it till they get home  >

I'm sorry if that came out a bit evil, this is an excellent ruling, it's so very draconian that it's quite a turn-on for me, this governor has essentially ruled that all public restrooms in CO are now unisex, anyone who denies someone entry gets 500$ and/or a year behind bars,  people who would say "you can't go in that restroom" will now be put in prison, that's so distastefully draconian that I adore it!

[tekla]

Real jerks take advantage, (its a big part of what makes them jerks in the first place) they don't care about the law.  The law is for suckers, saps, rubes or whatever.  Predators do what they do regardless of the law, and above and beyond all common sense.  What old guy really thinks that some 13 year old is dreaming of an old guy and not some super hot rock/TV/movie star much closer to their own age?  Only an idiot.  "Hi, I'm Chris Hanson."

That is why the death penalty for murder does not work.  By the time you are ready to kill someone - and lets just say, that is really, really mad in both meanings of the world mad - you are way beyond thinking on a rational level about consequences down the line.  That level of rational though is long gone long before you get to murder.  When it gets to the moment where people are pulling out guns and loading them, any event horizon beyond the next few seconds disappears.  So, those people who would seek that kind of advantage would not be put off by the law, or encouraged by no law.

For the most part, the pattern in these crimes tends toward very private settings where the perp can feel safe.  That tends to rule out most very public settings where you can't control the people coming in or out (or the ingress and egress for the lit majors).  That's why everyone still doubts the story of Joan Bennet Ramsey, its highly unlikely that anyone outside of the family would have taken her to another part of the house, they would have taken her out of the house - that's the pattern.  So I doubt that you will see any sort of spike in this level of crime happening in public places like say,restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries.  BTW, I'm I the only person who finds the mention of bathouses and massage parlors odd?  I would have thought locker rooms, or common shower spaces, I would have never thought of bathouses (a specific word which tends to be associated with a gay lifestyle) and massage parlors (and are you not mostly naked in a massage parlor anyway?) as the vector of crimes in line with the thinking here. 

(PLEASE DON'T TELL THEM, that people in Japan bath naked in common all the time, and seem none the worse for it)

[Natasha]

Ritter signs bill giving gays equal access to accommodations

Link
5/30/2008

"Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday signed a bill that makes it illegal in Colorado to discriminate against gays, bisexuals and transgendered people when buying a home, renting an apartment or using public accommodations."

[Lokaeign]

One other reason to object to this kind of defamatory bilge (as if one needed any more reasons) is that it is based upon and re-inforces the idea of "stranger danger"--the stereotype that rape and sexual abuse are only perpetrated by unknown predators lurking in the shadows.  The fact is that the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by family or aquaintances of the victim.  If people really want to protect their kids they should be looking closer to home.

[Rachael]

straight men in unisex chaging rooms with women .... asking for trouble... i know id NEVER change infront of men... its just not done. as for toilets... its not so bad. hell, i went int othe unisex loos at my local airsoft site to use the facilities, and 3 men against urinals were  rather shocked to see a female XD it was great fun to wander into the cubicle, close the door and just say 'as you were boys' XD
unisex loos are ok tbh, changing rooms ? hell no..
R >

[Alyssa M.]

Rachael,

The law doesn't mandate unisex changing rooms, and the social pressure against straight men (or gay for that matter) using women's locker rooms won't allow it. And neither does this law -- that's just an invention by the fundy whack-jobs from Colorado Springs. The only change in the law with respect to locker rooms is that you won't be able to kick gay men out of the men's locker room or lesbian women out of the women's; nor transgendered people of whatever gender identity out of their appropriate locker room.

If you're referring to changing rooms in stores, I'm not sure what the big deal is: Any time I've shopped for women's clothes, even presenting as male, I've been directed to use whatever fitting room is closest, whether ostensibly men's or women's. I use my little private stall, and don't bother anyone, and nobody seems to care.

I don't see how this law can be interpreted to legalize peeping, based on my brief skim of what the law states and zero legal experience. It sure doesn't seem to have been the intent of the legislature. So I think that if you should visit Colorado, you'll be safe (at least legally) from both bigots and sickos. It's quite a change from the days of Amendment 2 (if anone still remembers that).

~Alyssa

[nickie]

So tell me, Why in hell would a gay man go into a ladies restroom? To check out the decor?

[Janet_Girl]

IMHO.  I think that, after skimming the law, it strikes me that it was poorly written.  Just who were they trying to protect? Men or Women? 

I personally would not what a man walking into the womens restroom when I was in there.  If it was to protect CDs, then maybe those persons should try harder to 'pass' or go pee at home.  Were they trying to protect us?  Then the law should have been more specific.

It is a step in there right direction, tho.

Love,
Janet