Print

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

[Vector]

The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

True, instead it means that refusal of service is the default and suggests citizens have the right to sue the business if they are surprised by a trans person in the restroom at an establishment where the placard is not posted.


Weird, you don't need to drop the dictionary on me. What I'm saying is that Tennessee lawmakers have apparently made their choice based on some kind of negative interaction with trans people.

I am struggling here because I haven't seen any of these news stories about trans people acting like Karens. For example, none of the people calling the police on Black birdwatchers or asking for the managers that I've seen were trans. I have heard stories of trans teenagers getting lit on fire while sleeping, but again, I haven't seen any headlines like "demanding trans person causes problems for local small business owner." It could be that I'm just not reading the right newspapers and twitter accounts.

Am I acting like a Karen right now? I have to assume that I just don't understand what's wrong with my behavior. Is this anger and vitriol in a public space?


PS: If you want to Google something, I would recommend that you Google respectability politics. It's what we're discussing right now.

My position is basically, "DONT BE FUCKING KAREN WHEN DOING IT."

Yeah, can you link me to people being fucking Karen? Or tell me about an anecdote? Or point to a specific trans celebrity who acts like a Karen?

[None]

and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

I want to stress that this hasn't happened. The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

Thanks for encouraging me to read the bill- here's how it is:

Public Buildings - As enacted, requires a public or private entity or business that operates a building or facility open to the general public to post a notice at the entrance of each public restroom of the entity's or business's policy of allowing a member of either biological sex to use any public restroom within the building or facility, if the entity or business maintains such a policy. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 49 and Title 68.
HB1182 has been assigned Public Chapter Number 453 by the Secretary of State.

Businesses have to post a notice if they allow transgender people into their appropriate restroom. Has to be a part of the business policy first. No sign, it's not in their policy, you can't do it. Ergo, no sign means the transgender minority is opted out by default, unless my previously-established fundamental reading disability missed something.

Granted, the 'service' is 'access to a restroom' (and it's always fucking restrooms!), but still.

[Rolan7]

and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

I want to stress that this hasn't happened. The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

Correct,


This is why I suggested to turn it on its head.

ALL BUSINESSES OF ANY REAL CONSEQUENCE, will have the plaquard.

And all the other businesses must post a warning and waiver for their genital-inspections

It's still a bad law, based on unfounded hateful stereotypes, that punishes businesses for *not* harassing their customers.  We can hope that it backfires but it's still an unjust law.

[wierd]

and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

I want to stress that this hasn't happened. The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

Correct,


This is why I suggested to turn it on its head.

ALL BUSINESSES OF ANY REAL CONSEQUENCE, will have the plaquard.

And all the other businesses must post a warning and waiver for their genital-inspections

It's still a bad law, based on unfounded hateful stereotypes, that punishes businesses for *not* harassing their customers.  We can hope that it backfires but it's still an unjust law.

That I can agree with.  It IS a stupid law, and I VERY MUCH want it to backfire.

I want to see the "Oh noes! Transpeople!! Better inspect thoze genitals!!" establishments get sued into next century, when they demand to inspect some old woman's junk.

(and more than likely, trans people would not really want to visit such establishments ANYWAY.)


RE: Please show me LGBT people being Karen

Not being Karen per se, but fitting the same "Makes everyone else miserable" mold.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualPH/comments/gy77ol/unpopular_opinion_toxic_left_culture/

When people honestly have these kinds of discussions about groups and movements you associate with, you really should take notice.  The morons that passed this bathroom bill certainly do.

[McTraveller]

Just random question here - why would one ever need to know if you are using a bathroom based on identity instead of physiology?  Just always use a stall, and it would be impossible to know?  I don't really know of anyone that is trying to look down each others' pants while washing hands or whatever.

EDIT: got somewhat ninja'd, it seems...

[Maximum Spin]

Granted, the 'service' is 'access to a restroom' (and it's always fucking restrooms!), but still.

Nobody will not have access to a restroom. Individuals may not have access to the restroom they want. This distinction actually does matter.

True, instead it means that refusal of service is the default and suggests citizens have the right to sue the business if they are surprised by a trans person in the restroom at an establishment where the placard is not posted.

Everyone already has that right. The law may serve to help their case, but, while laws can remove a tort, they aren't necessary to establish one, really. It's part of the common-law system the US inherited, and it's usually a good thing.

[Vector]

I'm sorry to say this, but trans people do have the same boring preferences as cis people and like having general access to public spaces.

There's also of course the laws requiring genital inspections for kids' sports ^_^ Definitely ... caused by Karens ... am I right ...

Just random question here - why would one ever need to know if you are using a bathroom based on identity instead of physiology?  Just always use a stall, and it would be impossible to know?  I don't really know of anyone that is trying to look down each others' pants while washing hands or whatever.

So, trans people don't always pass, meaning, they don't get read as their target gender identity, they get read as a gender non-conforming <something>. Also, nonbinary-identified people could be described as people who don't "pass" as anything in particular (not trying to appear as a cisgender woman or cisgender man).

Cis people also sometimes attack gender non-conforming people trying to use the toilet (i.e. butch women in the women's toilet is the typical story you hear about).

Granted, the 'service' is 'access to a restroom' (and it's always fucking restrooms!), but still.

Nobody will not have access to a restroom. Individuals may not have access to the restroom they want. This distinction actually does matter.

This is actually not correct in practice. Trans women are not safe in men's toilets.

[Maximum Spin]

This is actually not correct in practice. Trans women are not safe in men's toilets.

They aren't necessarily safe in women's toilets either. And indeed, anything unsafe that would happen in either toilet is already illegal. There is nothing further that law can actually fix; it doesn't have that kind of power over people. It is already mandated that everyone have access to at least some public restroom; further mandates can't make it more mandatory.

Furthermore, the most likely outcome is probably going to be unisex toilets, which isn't really a solution.

[wierd]

I'm sorry to say this, but trans people do have the same boring preferences as cis people and like having general access to public spaces.

There's also of course the laws requiring genital inspections for kids' sports ^_^ Definitely ... caused by Karens ... am I right ...

Just random question here - why would one ever need to know if you are using a bathroom based on identity instead of physiology?  Just always use a stall, and it would be impossible to know?  I don't really know of anyone that is trying to look down each others' pants while washing hands or whatever.

So, trans people don't always pass, meaning, they don't get read as their target gender identity, they get read as a gender non-conforming <something>. Also, nonbinary-identified people could be described as people who don't "pass" as anything in particular (not trying to appear as a cisgender woman or cisgender man).

Cis people also sometimes attack gender non-conforming people trying to use the toilet (i.e. butch women in the women's toilet is the typical story you hear about).

Granted, the 'service' is 'access to a restroom' (and it's always fucking restrooms!), but still.

Nobody will not have access to a restroom. Individuals may not have access to the restroom they want. This distinction actually does matter.

This is actually not correct in practice. Trans women are not safe in men's toilets.

As a rather ribald gender-queer asexual male, (who gets called Ma'am repeatedly at work when I wear my face mask, which conceals my beard), I get this alltogether too often.

However, I consider it hilarious. This is mainly because I do not give two shits about a gender identity, but find it hilarious they assign me the incorrect physical one without the obvious visual cue, despite having no boobs, and having male bone structure. 

However, for somebody that honestly feels they are male, or female, and getting misgendered, I can see how it would be very much a source of endless consternation. (Similar to my "You just haven;t found the right person yet!" hatred.)

I am of the opinion that gendered bathrooms in general are an outmoded concept, and unisex bathrooms should be the norm everywhere.

Just make them single occupancy, and there is no problem anymore.  Works for us at work. Nobody complains about me using the damn bathroom that they use.

[Maximum Spin]

I am of the opinion that gendered bathrooms in general are an outmoded concept, and unisex bathrooms should be the norm everywhere.

I agree. It seems that women are mainly the ones who insist on separation; this is funny to me, since women's bathrooms are objectively worse.

However, unisex restrooms provide neither "hypothetically assumed to be safer" (which women's restrooms aren't really, but are perceived to be) nor "gender-affirming", which are the relevant desiderata from the perspective of the discussion.

[dragdeler]

-

[Vector]

This is actually not correct in practice. Trans women are not safe in men's toilets.

They aren't necessarily safe in women's toilets either. And indeed, anything unsafe that would happen in either toilet is already illegal. There is nothing further that law can actually fix; it doesn't have that kind of power over people. It is already mandated that everyone have access to at least some public restroom; further mandates can't make it more mandatory.

Furthermore, the most likely outcome is probably going to be unisex toilets, which isn't really a solution.

Here is a photo of Jazz Jennings. She is trans and has been looking like this since about age 14 or so. According to requirements of public schools in some states, she would be required to use the men's room. Or, sometimes they would require her to use the handicapped toilet.


No one has answered my question regarding specific Karen-like behavior that merits this change in the law.

However, unisex restrooms provide neither "hypothetically assumed to be safer" (which women's restrooms aren't really, but are perceived to be) nor "gender-affirming", which are the relevant desiderata from the perspective of the discussion.

I will add that nonbinary people want unisex toilets, not "gender-affirming" toilets.

[wierd]

Dont be so sure.

Toxic masculinity is a thing.

"ONLY GIRLS PEE SITTING DOWN!! HERRRP!!"

and all that.  This is a problem I have to deal with at work from our .... Lovely... elderly.  Sure, they have the parkinsonian shakes, and spray that urine all over the goodamn bathroom, but GODDAMN, THEY ARE NOT GONNA SIT DOWN TO GO!

Since our senior citizens will likewise be using the unisex toilets, be sure to bring your toilet protectors.  And a mop.


Vector: Re, specific instance of LGBT supporter being a karen--

See None's behavior prior, and his/her reaction to being called out for specific behavior.  While true they are blissfully unaware that I have been the butt of that kind of shit so many times I could fucking puke, which is why I shut them down so fucking hard, they still acted like a Karen over it.

[Vector]

*sigh*

Many young/middle-aged cis women actually don't sit down while using public toilets. Man, this is the crazy misinformation thread today ...

[dragdeler]

-