It's Not the Caitlyn's to be Worried About; It's the Jared's

[lvstephanie]

We are seeing a huge push for transgender rights lately. North Carolina has recently gotten a lot of flack for their law that requires people to use gender-specific rooms (eg bathrooms) that correlate to the person's gender that they were born with. In fact, Great Britain has issued a travel advisory to their citizens warning them about traveling to NC in light of this new law. However those in favor of the law argue that opening bathrooms to transgender people may lead to sexual predators abusing the laws to gain entrance to gender-specific rooms to further their deviant sexual desires.

A case in point... In February, a man in Washington state walked into a Seattle Parks & Rec. pool, going into the women's shower-room to change (see this article from the Washington Times). When confronted by other women who were changing there as well as pool staff asking him to leave or to use their family changing room, he replied that it was his right to change in that room. This is because in December of 2015, a state board had issued a ruling that transgender identifying people were allowed to freely use any public, gender-specific rooms that they wished to use. Furthermore, as this was seen as the transgender's civil right, anyone that felt embarrassed by having a transgendered person change with them, it was that person's responsibility (not the transgender person) to find alternate accommodations. After the man finished swimming, he went back to the women's room to change where there was now a youth swim team having practice. Thus the man was now easily able to view underaged girls in various states of undress. Since the man eventually left and because no sexual assault actually took place, the police never were contacted.

Proponents of gender-neutral bathrooms and change-rooms say that unisex bathrooms have shown no increase in sexual-related crimes. “There have been no sex offenders that have been posing as transgender people to get into bathrooms,” Democratic state Sen. Pramila Jayapal said during floor debate, according to The Seattle Times. However as this case points out, not all situations lead to the police being contacted nor anyone being charged with criminal activity. Thus “If you were to look into this incident, because police weren’t called, there’s no paper trail that the average person could discover indicating this issue happened. The only reason we’re aware of the incident is due to a KIRO Radio listener who spoke up. So it’s problematic for activists to claim these incidents don’t happen if police aren’t always being called.” as a Seattle-local radio host illustrated.

Additionally,  Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington pointed out “On what basis could law enforcement or a judge say, ‘You were not identifying as a woman?’ Because it’s a self-identifying standard. How do you disprove that somebody is not actually identifying as a woman? The answer is, you can’t.” This also means that other sex offenses that don't amount to assault, such as "Peeping Tom" laws, couldn't be used either for the same reason.

[DwanaMR]

Travel advisory about a state that requires men to use the men's restroom and women to use the women's restroom?  The world has gone stone crazy!

Hear me.

If you have a *bleep*, you're a man.  If you have a vagina, you're a woman.  If you have a *bleep* but think you're a woman you have a problem.  If you have a vagina but think you're a man, you have a problem.  Now, how do we deal with that problem?  That's the real controversy.  But we don't deal with this problem by demanding that the whole of society must affirm whatever someone THINKS he is, and then screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" when that affirmation is not forthcoming.

[linderlizzie]

Travel advisory about a state that requires men to use the men's restroom and women to use the women's restroom?  The world has gone stone crazy!

Hear me.

If you have a *bleep*, you're a man.  If you have a vagina, you're a woman.  If you have a *bleep* but think you're a woman you have a problem.  If you have a vagina but think you're a man, you have a problem.  Now, how do we deal with that problem?  That's the real controversy.  But we don't deal with this problem by demanding that the whole of society must affirm whatever someone THINKS he is, and then screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" when that affirmation is not forthcoming.

Why was the male genitalia bleeped and the lady genitalia not bleeped by Fusion Cash in your post. Is that some sort of discrimination?

Just wondering. 

[DwanaMR]

Travel advisory about a state that requires men to use the men's restroom and women to use the women's restroom?  The world has gone stone crazy!

Hear me.

If you have a *bleep*, you're a man.  If you have a vagina, you're a woman.  If you have a *bleep* but think you're a woman you have a problem.  If you have a vagina but think you're a man, you have a problem.  Now, how do we deal with that problem?  That's the real controversy.  But we don't deal with this problem by demanding that the whole of society must affirm whatever someone THINKS he is, and then screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" when that affirmation is not forthcoming.

Why was the male genitalia bleeped and the lady genitalia not bleeped by Fusion Cash in your post. Is that some sort of discrimination?

Just wondering. 

I'm wondering the same thing, linderlizzie.  Maybe I should impersonate a liberal and shriek, "Discrimination!!!!"

[paints]

So, my question is, how are they going to enforce this bathroom law?
Is there going to be a policeman standing at the door, checking birth certificates?
Or checking genitalia, to see if you match your stated gender?

If you're in a restroom, and another woman thinks you look like a man, does that mean you ARE a man?
We're not all Julia Roberts.  Women come in all shapes and sizes, and once we stop standing up for each other, looking out for each other, the likelihood of being attacked multiplies.

[DwanaMR]

"If you're in a restroom, and another woman thinks you look like a man, does that mean you ARE a man?"  According to the politicized transgender logic, yes.  These bathroom laws don't seem to be aimed at transsexual women; rather, they're aimed at intact, biological men who want to use the women's bathroom because they "self-identify" as female.  The political agenda is that society must affirm whatever someone "identifies" himself to be.  So, if Tom can become a woman simply because he "identifies" as one, then a masculine looking woman in the women's bathroom can become a man simply  because another woman "identifies" her as one.  That's just in keeping with the logic.

These bathroom laws don't violate civil rights.  They don't seem to be aimed at natural born or transsexual men and women.  Rather, they're aimed at biological, intact men and women who insist on using the opposite sex restroom because they "self-identify" as the opposite gender.  These laws are an unqualified affirmation that physical, biological reality trumps personal feelings or perspectives.  And that's the real reason they're hated.

[lvstephanie]

I agree that this is a difficult issue... As I tried to point out with my title, I don't care if a true transsexual uses the bathroom that they identify with; I'm ok with Caitlyn Jenner uses the women's restroom as I'm more assured that Caitlyn going there is using the facility for its intended use. At the same time, a person that just claims that they identify with a woman yet hasn't undergone hormone treatment nor surgery, I don't have that same assurance, and so I'd rather protect true women's privacy and not allow that man in for fear that the man is more of a sexual pervert trying to view women in compromising situations.

I guess what I have an issue with more are the laws that relate to this issue. The problem with laws like these is that they are "one size fits all". Whether the law allows people to use whatever bathroom they desire or a law that forces people to use the facility of the gender that they are born with, all businesses would have to comply regardless of its own code of ethics. In addition to the law enforcing some view of ethics that not everyone agrees with, these laws are also difficult to enforce. As paints illustrated, laws requiring people to use the bathroom of the person's innate sex would necessarily require some authority figure / monitor to validate birth certificates, etc. to ensure that people are using the correct bathroom, yet at the same time as Joseph Backholm mentioned in the article, "self-identity" is a person's own person feelings / beliefs that too has no way to distinguish those who wish to go to the bathroom in peace vs. some sick pervert that is setting up hidden cameras in the women's locker room.

I think the best approach is moderation in the laws... Firstly, don't make a law federal (ie no constitutional amendment one way or the other) but rather let the states choose how they wish to handle the situation themselves. When the whole country is required to follow a particular law, you take away more people's freedoms forcing more people to adopt some value that not all subscribe to. Also by keeping it at the state level, we can have states with very different viewpoints and so can do a better job of "experimenting" to find the best law. Secondly, allow businesses to decide how they wish to handle the situation. Let the "invisible hand" of the marketplace guide the businesses. If customers feel that a business that enforces gender-specific facilities is too harsh on transgendered people, then that business will lose sales and hence money. Conversely, if customers feel that allowing people to "self-identify" with the facility they wish to use takes away from their privacy, they'll turn to other businesses in the same market that does more to assure people of their privacy. The best policy for a business would be something that helps the most of their customers while minimizing loss of potential customers due to that policy. Thus I've already began to witness how many of the more recent buildings being erected nowadays don't have any gender-specific rooms, but rather more single-person rooms (eg "family" restrooms that have only one toilet and sink for use by one person at a time). These buildings offer customers the most in terms of privacy while at the same time minimizing transgendered people feeling marginalized by company policy. Yet even though I think that these type of buildings offer the best solution to the problem, I still would disagree with a law that forces all buildings to utilize only these types of facilities as the laws still don't know what challenges each business would face and again decreases the amount of freedom experienced by all.

[paints]

Honestly, I think they're targeting the wrong people.

Sexual predators are overwhelmingly heterosexual men.  More often than not, they are known to the victim.
Child molesters, same thing.  Family member or someone known to the victim, that the parents trust.
 
If the laws are about protecting women from sexual predators, we already have laws that cover that.

I read a story a few years ago about rape kits not being tested, something like 400,000 nationwide.  That's 400,000 rapes that nobody bothered with.  400,000 rapists walking free, because identifying and catching rapists was not a priority. 

So, I find this sudden concern for women and children a little disingenuous.

[danmo783]

I can't emphasize enough how I don't care about this "issue." What if I want to be part man, part woman, and part dog? Is that cool? Do I get to use the transgendered fire hydrant?

[BATISTAGIRL663]

i just think this has come about to distract us from something else --i mean really hasnt this been going on for years --why now all the sudden is it important ??

[BlackSheepNY]

Travel advisory about a state that requires men to use the men's restroom and women to use the women's restroom?  The world has gone stone crazy!

Hear me.

If you have a *bleep*, you're a man.  If you have a vagina, you're a woman.  If you have a *bleep* but think you're a woman you have a problem.  If you have a vagina but think you're a man, you have a problem.  Now, how do we deal with that problem?  That's the real controversy.  But we don't deal with this problem by demanding that the whole of society must affirm whatever someone THINKS he is, and then screaming "DISCRIMINATION!" when that affirmation is not forthcoming.

Why was the male genitalia bleeped and the lady genitalia not bleeped by Fusion Cash in your post. Is that some sort of discrimination?

Just wondering. 

I'm with ya!  I don't care how many operations a man or woman may have to "change" what they "look" like, or how many hormones that man or woman may TAKE to "change" what they "look" like, YOU CAN'T CHANGE DNA.  You are a MALE or a FEMALE, period.  I think it's disgusting that Obama finds this issue so very important that he needs to FORCE WOMEN to accept this BS when there are much LARGER problems looming - like his aiding and abetting our enemies by sending taxpayer money to support TERRORISTS.  This is a non-issue to me.  It's YOUR problem if you choose to dress like whoever you THINK you are, but it's NOT my problem to FIX YOUR PROBLEMS.  If they want to be considered "special," then create an entirely NEW BATHROOM for TRANSGENDERS ONLY - but NO, they won't be happy with that because they want to INVADE A WOMAN'S PRIVACY.  Get bent!

[vg7405]

I am all for live and let live, but to be honest, the transgender community intrigues me. I am not saying that all transgender people are bad or have malicious intent. However, enabling them to use the restroom that coincides with what they "feel" is their actual gender identity opens up an entirely new can of worms. Several people have vocalized their concern, particularly when it comes to potential rapists and child predators using this transgender position as a guise in which to commit crimes. I say create separate restrooms for transgender people, so that those who feel a little uneasy (such as myself) can enjoy their privacy in peace.

[danmo783]

I know my sister would physically push or punch some "guy" out of the bathroom and risk jail and an assault charge, especially if my niece is in there.

[sfreeman8]

My question on this subject is....why does Obama and Congress avoid the REAL issues of this country and get involved in PERSONAL and PRIVATE issues that are of NO CONCERN to Congress and the president? IOW, the bathroom bill should not have even been brought up. Up until then, no one ever thought about it. Men took their parts to the men's room and women took their parts to the ladies room. If they looked like a woman, they went to the ladies room and vice versa. Now it's war between the sexes AGAIN.

My answer is....because one side want to control every thing every person in this country does or does not do. This is why "it takes a village" became one person's call years back. This is why some of our kids are so out of control. The village (schools, government) are controlling what they learn, what they hear, what they see, what they can and cannot do (Poptart boy, bubble machine girl, etc., lousy lunches that no kid ate in school, etc.). No child is allowed to fall and hurt themselves anymore but with they way they have to be wrapped up in all the safety equipment, they'll be falling from the weight of the safety equipment. If Johnny does get hurt with a bruise from a fall, a broken bone, etc. from climbing a tree, riding a bike, or doing what kids USED to be able to do, CPS is called in and the family's under investigation and the kids get locked up in foster care.   It's no wonder the kids today are on cell phones, tablets, and computers for their fun these days. Parents are afraid.  It has to stop.

Freedom is beginning to be just a dream to most people. Sorry. I get carried away sometimes.