Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

I think that the reason is pretty easy : those peoples are censors. Conservative censors.

Everyone who try to make you abide by a pointless law is trying to gaain control and power over society. They are trying to control your morals and behaviors.



The arguments advanced make no sense :

-security : The only thing it explain is why you're in a women's toilet dressed as a women. Note that women's bathrooms aren't patrolled by armed guards and that men also go there occasionally (for instance with their little daughter). I don't think that "I suddently felt trangender, that's why I was looking at the person in the next stall over the wall" will be an effective defence ever.

-unease : they usually won't notice anything, and transgenders are relatively rare anyway.


Now why peoples oppose unisex only bathroom is rather obvious : a lot of big public bathrooms are separated by really thin wall and a lot of peoples are already uncomfortable unsing them. Some girls I know would simply be unable to use them.

[Neonivek]

So basically it is that Family Guy episode where they tried to censor real life.

Though on a more serious note... the same thinking as the laws that prevent you from drinking in public.

[Phmcw]

So basically it is that Family Guy episode where they tried to censor real life.

Though on a more serious note... the same thinking as the laws that prevent you from drinking in public.

Well we don't have those either.

[Frumple]

... we do have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct, though, in the US. As well as DUI et al, which in the states drinking in public is only a half-step from openly admitting you're about to do so. There's also various ones that restrict drinking in certain areas. It is fairly rare that there's actual no-drinking-in-public laws, here in the states, but it's fairly common that there's a suite of them that functionally equates to it.

[Phmcw]

... we do have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct, though, in the US. As well as DUI et al, which in the states drinking in public is only a half-step from openly admitting you're about to do so. There's also various ones that restrict drinking in certain areas. It is fairly rare that there's actual no-drinking-in-public laws, here in the states, but it's fairly common that there's a suite of them that functionally equates to it.

I mean in Belgium. Or at least we never use them (for some reason we stop using laws long before we officially repel them). You can drink your hearth content in the main square of Bruxelles and never get into trouble.

[scriver]

Same here, as far as I know. Unless you start disturbing others of course, which is a whole other matter.

[BurnedToast]

Ideal solution: unisex bathrooms. I don't really care who uses the toilet with me.

That's not going to happen though, because reasons (even if you think they are bad reasons). So IMO, transsexual people should just use the restroom for their birth sex - it's the only objective, simple, fair way of deciding who uses what restroom.

I know that's not what you want. I know some people might feel bad because they have to use the "wrong" restroom, but when you use the one you feel is correct, you make other people feel bad and their feelings are just as important as yours.

Please don't think I'm some kind of hateful bigot or something - I really don't care what restroom you use and I think all this legal nonsense about throwing people in jail for it is all a stupid waste of time.. However, if it has to be segregated - and for now it does (at least in america) since american culture won't accept unisex restrooms then we have to decide what criteria we use to determine who goes where. "Whatever restroom I want to use" is no good because it effectively makes all restrooms unisex, and that's something the majority of people don't want.

Re: "but but but the men kill us if we use the men's room", cite? I can only find ONE example of a transsexual being beaten up over using the restroom, and (surprise) it was two women beating her up for using the women's room. I found another example of a transsexual being killed in a (private, hotel) restroom but it was almost certainly unrelated to which restroom she used in public. if there's some sort of epidemic of toilet-induced rage killings (or solid evidence such a thing would occur) then I might reconsider my opinion based on a public safety standpoint, but I see no evidence that this is a genuine threat.

Re: special toilets for transsexuals. Transsexuals are less then 1% of the population (in most areas), even if we set aside all moral issues about it, it's just not practical to build a third set of toilets for such a small group of people, especially when there's no mechanical reason they can't use one of the existing toilets.

[Phmcw]

Why not "apparent sex" which make imho much more sense, especially since there is no legal interdiction for peoples to use any bathroom?

[Neonivek]

Why not "apparent sex" which make imho much more sense, especially since there is no legal interdiction for peoples to use any bathroom?

"apparent sex" has its own problems.

From transgenders who make no attempt to feminize or masculinize themselves... to ones who cannot pull off the look convincingly... to gender fluids.

And heck it hurts cross dressers who are men and women who like to wear clothes (and sometimes makeup, hair, and stuff) but who don't consider themselves another gender.

[Truean]

There isn't much of an "other side."

[Neonivek]

Do you want the argument the other side would try to ply? See, this is what I mean about argument structure and keeping emotion out of it. If you do it right, then you can do devil's advocate and argue the side you DON'T support.

I can play Devil's advocate, I can think of several convincing arguments in favor of keeping people in the bathrooms of their sex.

I just want to know their position.

As well, I don't like to play Devil's advocate knowing nothing about their position as it often will lead me to misrepresenting.

[smjjames]

Sometimes it seems like laws that politicians make get no scruitiny or the lowest level of it.

[Neonivek]

Sometimes it seems like laws that politicians make get no scruitiny or the lowest level of it.

Well here is another way to put it.

Politicians are often the affluent, middle to high class, influential whitest majority... and often have very conservative leanings.

Trust me they are getting a LOT of scrutiny for it. There are hundreds of articles saying how dumb this law is.

[Frajic]

Transgender men and women should be allowed to use their respective bathrooms because they are men and women. Having them use the bathroom for their assigned birth sex would be forcing them to publicly say "I'm not actually a man/woman". Deeply humiliating, and sometimes dangerous.

Though unisex bathrooms would also be a good thing for people who don't fit in either, and, hey - they can be used by anyone.

[Truean]

Sometimes it seems like laws that politicians make get no scruitiny or the lowest level of it.

Correct. Rather true.

Most laws will not receive anything but rational basis, and that's a very low hurdle, so most laws will be considered ok under it. Only when it seems a law is attempting to regulate something that is a suspect class (the law is suspect for trying to regulate it) will higher scrutiny be applied.

Transgender men and women should be allowed to use their respective bathrooms because they are men and women. Having them use the bathroom for their assigned birth sex would be forcing them to publicly say "I'm not actually a man/woman". Deeply humiliating, and sometimes dangerous.

Though unisex bathrooms would also be a good thing for people who don't fit in either, and, hey - they can be used by anyone.

Agreed. I'd be all for that.