I don't often use public restrooms, but when I do...

[badrose]

It seems the debate over where transgenders should go has hit my home town of Flatwoods, KY. I understand the concerns of both sides and, so long as no one is harmed, flashed, or molested I don't much care. Do your business and get out. OTOH there are predators who might see opportunities, particularly where kids are concerned.

Thoughts?

[badrose]

Shew! I'm glad the thread title was cut off at 'public'.

[Doc]

My question is what about the rights of the "non trans-gender" folks? Do they not have a right to privacy as well? Using a women's bathroom isn't a big deal since they are all stalls, and I guess a woman who thinks she is a he would do the same in a men's room since, well even though she thinks she is a he, she can't stand to pee..... unless she stood on her head and shot toward the urinal....... I guess THEY would have privacy, but what about the non-trany?
But the big concern is this that is this just a situation that is ripe for abuse?

[badrose]

I'm told it's been going on for years. If so, why make a law now? I suspect it's another divide and conquer strategy to shore up some votes in an election year.

[kingcat]

I grew up without gender specific bathrooms. Money changed that to fill big places with customers.

Back to basics I say...one bathroom with a lock on the door is the way it is suppose to be.
Otherwise..hold it. Then again, the solutions are easy, Sacrifice laziness and comfort and the desire to mingle with strangers, or build childrens bathrooms.

And if a weirdo bothers you in a bathroom kick their arses

[suncat05]

I am not exactly sure how anything actionable can be taken unless there is some sort of complaint made, and the person complaining is genuinely upset........and in fear for their safety, or the safety of a minor child.
At that point, it is a matter of checking the alleged offender by the investigating officer to see if there has been any sexual misconduct in their history.
Myself, personally, whatever "equipment" a person has between their legs tells me what and who they biologically are, so that tells me what facility they "should be" using.
But this whole situation has opened a "Pandora's Box" that is ripe for misuse and abuse, particularly by pedophiles intent on abusing innocent children.

Somewhere along the way the only people who will ultimately benefit from this are the litigation-happy attorneys. JMHO. No one else really wins in this entire mess.

[PedroDaGr8]

The most common complaint that I see is that pedophiles will molest little girls. Meanwhile, pedophiles assault little boys WAY more frequently than girls. So either this is a smoke screen or no one cares about the boys.

[Darrell KSR]

I see the issue as a "comfort level." As Pedro says, the "pedophile" issue is a smokescreen. Doesn't really translate in that area.

Where it translates is in the "comfort" area. A transgender, or polysexual person (PLEASE forgive me if I'm calling something the wrong name) may feel uncomfortable in using a particular restroom.

A non-transgender, non-polysexual (or a cynic might say, a transgender-phobic or polysexual-phobic, depending on which side you're on) person may feel uncomfortable unless everyone in the restroom exhibits the same gender they have.

At first glance, one might be tempted to say, "why should "their" (transgender/polysexual) comfort level matter more than mine, as they are the minority, and we are the majority?"

I guess that's a position to take.

Another one is that we have long stood for the "rights" of individuals who are in the minority, if it's the right, moral, ethical, less-fattening, whatever, way to do things. Is this one of those cases?

I don't know. I'm better at spotting what *I* think are the true issues here, than resolving them.

To me, I don't care. But my personally being unconcerned over who walks in while I am voiding isn't the issue, either.

[dan_bgblue]

It would be normal for the government to issue a fiat that all establishments that provide bathroom facilities for their customers MUST provide a third facility for persons that do not fit the standard female or male model. Why not do it in this instance?

[KeithKSR]

It seems the debate over where transgenders should go has hit my home town of Flatwoods, KY. I understand the concerns of both sides and, so long as no one is harmed, flashed, or molested I don't much care. Do your business and get out. OTOH there are predators who might see opportunities, particularly where kids are concerned.

Thoughts?

It is causing quite a stir locally.

I say you should go to the restroom that matches your equipment, no matter how you were born. A true transgender has had surgery to change their equipment and should have no problem passing for the real thing in a public setting.

[KeithKSR]

It would be normal for the government to issue a fiat that all establishments that provide bathroom facilities for their customers MUST provide a third facility for persons that do not fit the standard female or male model. Why not do it in this instance?

Many businesses already have a third restroom in place. All the local places like Walmart and Kroger have a family restroom, as do most malls.

[CitizenBBN]

I see the issue as a "comfort level." As Pedro says, the "pedophile" issue is a smokescreen. Doesn't really translate in that area.

The pedophile argument may be something of a smokescreen to a degree, but there's no doubt it does expand their opportunities, for those pedophiles that go after girls. Is it a smaller number than those who molest boys? Well, that's actually open to some debate b/c the sense is that so much of it goes unreported it's hard to say. yes many pedophiles go after boys, but many also go after girls, and while the current arrangement does not protect same sex molestations it does help protect from opposite sex molestations, and that's still a good thing isn't it even if we don't stop the others?

But IMO, the pedophile concern isn't as big as the broader "pervert" concern. The internet and case law are full of examples of voyeurism anywhere that females are otherwise exposed, and this only opens up their opportunities a great deal more.

it's not just about outright molestation. there will be a host of other related problems and incidents.

Will they happen in schools? Not as likely IMO, as the person who goes in regularly is claiming he is transgender, and that comes with a host of social issues that will provide a disincentive. But will it happen where someone can simply go in and go out and not really be accountable to own up to being transgender? Yeah, I can see that happening.

But I do think for most the issue is as Darrell outlined it, as one of comfort. And to be honest I get that, but I'm going to put that part in a separate post to keep my thoughts straight.

[CitizenBBN]

As for the "comfort" issue, I think that's the crux of the debate, mostly bc this is where it either is or isn't a case of discrimination akin to the racial discrimination for which the Civil Rights Act was written, and it's the CRA that is the basis for this argument.

(Ignoring for a moment the absurdity IMO of Obama claiming Title IX gives him executive authority to control the bathroom policy of every school in America)

So lets say in the 60s we have segregation of bathrooms or changing rooms. OK, that was the case in some places. The CRA comes along (with case law) and says that those places have to integrate.

THe argument at the time among others was one of comfort as well. White people were going to be in some cases totally comfortable but in some cases totally uncomfortable in a school shower or a gym lockerroom or a public bathroom with a minority.

That argument lost bc the position was that everyone is equal and those who see race as a dividing line were simply going to have to get over it b/c America is based in equality and dividing the bathroom on race makes someone a second class citizen and there was no legitimate issue other than simply being prejudiced.

Well, that's the case being made now for transgenders. For people to be uncomfortable having someone with the opposite gender's plumbing in the same bathroom or even shower with them is just being prejudiced and they need to get over it.

But there are two issues that arise from that position IMO.

The main one is this: decades of social engineering to end racial prejudice didn't require us to undermine any other particular values or deny any religious beliefs. Fools like the KKK aside (bc they wrapped religion around racism, they didn't become racist b/c of their religion), no one had to deny their core religious or cultural beliefs outside of race in order for that change to happen.

But one can argue that this isn't the same. It requires us to very much change centuries old standards for gender separation and respect as well as the religious beliefs that underscore those standards. We're going to force millions of Americans to accept a different behavior in the end at the point of a gun (all government action in the end is backed up by a gun, otherwise we'd ignore it a whole lot more) that is contrary to a lot more than just that they don't like gay or transgender people.

The arguments are historically very similar to those made in the 60s, but in this case I think the opposition may have more of a point.

Asking people to be OK with their daughter going into a public restroom, say one without stall doors or whatever, or a school shower, and being OK with that they may see, is a LOT to ask of some people. They were afraid to have them see a black person in the 60s, and that they just needed to get over, but IMO seeing a minority of the same sex and seeing any colored person with the opposite anatomy is a different question, at least for many millions of Americans.

[Doc]

Personally, I'd rather use the women's restroom just from a hygene point of view. Lets be honest, men are pigs. They pee on the seat IF they hit toilet at all. Sometimes they even flush but 90% of the time the toilets already have an occupant before I even enter a stall which is why I never use a public restroom for "number two". Honestly, in my adult life (post 18 years of age), I've used a public bathroom for a dookie exactly THREE times, and that includes work. Twice was due to hangovers (once the day of the GRE, once was in Frankfort Germany), and the third time was at work about a month ago when I was sick to my stomach and couldn't make it home. So for me, given the option, I'll claim to be a women so I can use a clean restroom rather than sit on somebody else pee. Personally I feel sorry for the women who will now have to deal with the disgusting habits associated with the Y chromosome.

[CitizenBBN]

Doc, many women have sworn to me that the women's bathrooms are just as bad and that there are enough women with poor habits that they have the same issues. I have yet to conduct a survey, but apparently soon it will be legal to do so if I so chose.

[PedroDaGr8]

Doc, many women have sworn to me that the women's bathrooms are just as bad and that there are enough women with poor habits that they have the same issues. I have yet to conduct a survey, but apparently soon it will be legal to do so if I so chose.

I worked in a restaurant back in college. ENd of the night I often removed the trash from the restrooms. Womens restroom WAY WAY WAY worse. No comparison. Guys at worst dribble pee on the floor or the seat. Women, I dunno what the hell you do but y'all nasty. I will spare you the details, lets just say women hands down.

[Doc]

I worked in a restaurant back in college. ENd of the night I often removed the trash from the restrooms. Womens restroom WAY WAY WAY worse. No comparison. Guys at worst dribble pee on the floor or the seat. Women, I dunno what the hell you do but y'all nasty. I will spare you the details, lets just say women hands down.

In high school, I worked as a "dish tank operator" for Bob Evans (or Chez Bob as we called it) and as closer it was my job to do the evening clean up of the rest rooms, so yes, I know of what you speak. When it was nasty, it was nastier however the mens room is always nasty while the womens room was usually tolerable.

[CitizenBBN]

I worked in a restaurant back in college. ENd of the night I often removed the trash from the restrooms. Womens restroom WAY WAY WAY worse. No comparison. Guys at worst dribble pee on the floor or the seat. Women, I dunno what the hell you do but y'all nasty. I will spare you the details, lets just say women hands down.

Women and many in the food service industry have told me the same thing.

Obviously I'm wise to associate with the right women, b/c I can't imagine them being messy in any part of their life (a few have had clothes laying around, but never outright filth). Their bathrooms have been impeccable. OK, there was one in high school who wasn't desperately neat, but she made up for it in other ways. :)

[UKHistory]

Personally, I'd rather use the women's restroom just from a hygene point of view. Lets be honest, men are pigs. They pee on the seat IF they hit toilet at all. Sometimes they even flush but 90% of the time the toilets already have an occupant before I even enter a stall which is why I never use a public restroom for "number two". Honestly, in my adult life (post 18 years of age), I've used a public bathroom for a dookie exactly THREE times, and that includes work. Twice was due to hangovers (once the day of the GRE, once was in Frankfort Germany), and the third time was at work about a month ago when I was sick to my stomach and couldn't make it home. So for me, given the option, I'll claim to be a women so I can use a clean restroom rather than sit on somebody else pee. Personally I feel sorry for the women who will now have to deal with the disgusting habits associated with the Y chromosome.

Women's restrooms are quite horrible in many offices across the country. My wife's former employer actually had to send messages to the female employees (lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, etc) about the disgraceful appearance of the bathroom for women.

They are not better all the time and if a successful private firm that entertains fortune 500 clients has issues, I don't want to know what happens at my office in the women's room.

[UKHistory]

Pedophiles have far more access and more frequently assault children as priests, coaches, teachers, boy scout troop leaders, etc than lurking in the bathroom.

As far as a presidential debate issue this is nothing absolutely nothing. It only serves as an attempt to get people worked up over issues that don't truly impact their quality of life.

I think defining what constitutes a transgender person is something far more nuanced than a lot of us have experience with.

I am a guy and knew pretty quick as a youngster that I like women. Can't fully appreciate how tough it might be out of the norm in terms of who, based on gender, I am supposed to be attracted to.

I really can't appreciate looking in the mirror or going through life and thinking in my heart that I am actually a different gender.

Now in some cases doctors are unsure as to the sex of a baby at birth and "make the determination". Those are the first of these issues I have heard about. I personally feel pretty lucky that no one tried to put me in a category that didn't feel right for me.

Back to the bathroom, I can't help but think that we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of the population this impacts. And as excited as young boys might be to look at pretty girls, I can't help but think many heterosexual men would dress up like women just to sneak a peek in public.

[Darrell KSR]

Pedophiles have far more access and more frequently assault children as priests, coaches, teachers, boy scout troop leaders, etc than lurking in the bathroom.


I have attended annual "Child Protection Training" seminars, and that's dead on the money. Private offices are much more "dangerous" than public restrooms.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/25/eleven-states-sue-over-obama-administrations-transgender-directive.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[Doc]

Pedophiles have far more access and more frequently assault children as priests, coaches, teachers, boy scout troop leaders, etc than lurking in the bathroom.

You forgot Assistant College Football Coaches

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2012/news/jerry-sandusky-320.jpg

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/25/eleven-states-sue-over-obama-administrations-transgender-directive.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Good.

I don't even care about the issue per se, but I care deeply that the federal purse strings have basically destroyed federalism and that the President now has such broad regulatory authority (at least in his own mind) that the executive can simply create such rules without any action by Congress and force them on the states and their institutions.

The code of laws in this country has become so large, and Congress has so delegated its responsibilities that bureaucrats and Presidents can find some justification for about any decree they want to make.

[Doc]

All I know is I'm glad my kids are grown and I don't have to deal with this crap as far as my kids in school being taught gender orientation etc......

My son has a penis hence he is a boy..... My daughter doesn't. No confusion there.

[CitizenBBN]

All I know is I'm glad my kids are grown and I don't have to deal with this crap as far as my kids in school being taught gender orientation etc......

My son had a penis hence he is a boy..... My daughter didn't. No confusion there.

There's some new guidelines I heard on the radio this morning where they have identified 37 "gender identities".

What f-ing alien planet did they use for that list? Even in Star Trek Species 8472 has only 5 genders, and that's the most of any in their known universe.

There is more than one sexual preference, but there are only two genders. Yes with surgery and modern technology you can do a fair amount of mixing and matching, but that's like saying if you tattoo your whole body green you're a different ethnic group. You may be a different color, but your ethnicity is what it is.

Personally I don't care if you do whatever you want to your body, and partner with whoever you want, but lets not pretend you've invented a new class of the species. Your DNA is the same, this is all just cosmetics and emotions. valid to have, but not a new gender.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It is causing quite a stir locally.

I say you should go to the restroom that matches your equipment, no matter how you were born. A true transgender has had surgery to change their equipment and should have no problem passing for the real thing in a public setting.

Do you know how much that surgery costs?

I know enough transgendered that still have their original equipment but still manage to live happy lives completely adopting the lifestyle of the gender for which they identify.


Those that want to restrict bathroom access to the gender on the birth certificate always say that it opens the doors for predators to enter bathrooms. What is missed from that argument is that this law does nothing to prevent people from entering those bathrooms. Are predators all of a sudden going to obey laws? Besides, laws are already on the books to protect.(Kind of sounds familiar to gun control arguments, but that's another debate)

Pedro brings up a great point that the debate is also skewed towards the women's bathroom. We all know that most predators are gender neutral. Why is the argument so (trans)gender biased?

We've been sharing bathrooms with those that identify with the opposite gender than their birth forever. If it's really about protecting the children, do people want to have the conversation with their young daughter why the bearded man(and yes, most transgendered embrace the most gender specific traits of which they're identifying) is in their bathroom?

Ted Cruz made an argument that he didn't want his young daughters in the bathroom alone with men. First of all, who sends their young daughters into the bathroom alone? Second of all, most good parents will take their young children into ANY bathroom. Fathers take their daughters into Men's rooms and Mothers take their sons into Women's bathrooms. We even now have family bathrooms in many places.

These laws are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Discrimination aside, that's enough to make them bad laws.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Pedophiles have far more access and more frequently assault children as priests, coaches, teachers, boy scout troop leaders, etc than lurking in the bathroom.

As far as a presidential debate issue this is nothing absolutely nothing. It only serves as an attempt to get people worked up over issues that don't truly impact their quality of life.

I think defining what constitutes a transgender person is something far more nuanced than a lot of us have experience with.

I am a guy and knew pretty quick as a youngster that I like women. Can't fully appreciate how tough it might be out of the norm in terms of who, based on gender, I am supposed to be attracted to.

I really can't appreciate looking in the mirror or going through life and thinking in my heart that I am actually a different gender.

Now in some cases doctors are unsure as to the sex of a baby at birth and "make the determination". Those are the first of these issues I have heard about. I personally feel pretty lucky that no one tried to put me in a category that didn't feel right for me.

Back to the bathroom, I can't help but think that we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of the population this impacts. And as excited as young boys might be to look at pretty girls, I can't help but think many heterosexual men would dress up like women just to sneak a peek in public.

Oh man...

I was right there with you until that part.

Many? Really? Of course, there are some freaks, but it's such a small part of the population. Much smaller than those that have inflicted violence on gays and transgendered in bathrooms.

[CitizenBBN]

This isn't about transsexuals, at least not those who otherwise pass as a different gender. They've been able to go to the restroom that fits their look all along. This is being driven by things like transgenderism moving to such a young age group it's now in secondary schools and also those who "identify" as a different gender but aren't otherwise passing as that gender, raising a response when they use the other restroom.

Maybe they didn't feel welcome in that situation, but it's been going on for a while. What's blowing this up is the idea of a guy going in the other bathroom and claiming he has a right to be there b/c he identifies as a female, without otherwise doing the things that would indicate it's the case.

The guy who is taking hormones and otherwise acting like a girl isn't the problem. I'm sure they've had issues here and there, but they aren't what's worrying folks.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

This isn't about transsexuals, at least not those who otherwise pass as a different gender. They've been able to go to the restroom that fits their look all along. This is being driven by things like transgenderism moving to such a young age group it's now in secondary schools and also those who "identify" as a different gender but aren't otherwise passing as that gender, raising a response when they use the other restroom.

Maybe they didn't feel welcome in that situation, but it's been going on for a while. What's blowing this up is the idea of a guy going in the other bathroom and claiming he has a right to be there b/c he identifies as a female, without otherwise doing the things that would indicate it's the case.

The guy who is taking hormones and otherwise acting like a girl isn't the problem. I'm sure they've had issues here and there, but they aren't what's worrying folks.

Well, that's certainly not how the political defenders of the law is painting it.

If this is a debate about how do we teach our children, that's a real debate. However, to pass meaningless laws that discriminate because people don't want to have those conversations, that's just wrong.

Lessons in life, what we need to teach our children, always involves teaching them that others may not believe the same. For as many people that are uncomfortable(for whatever the reasons are) about talking about racism, transgendered, gays or anything else, there are more conversations of those people and their children about how to accept everybody for who they are and treat others like you want to be treated.

I drifted a bit there, but to get back on track, those that try to use these laws as a defense are guilty of many other pre-existing laws on the books. They'll never succeed.

I have an idea. Let's see if occurrences spike before we enact laws. Right now, that hasn't happened. It's been more of an issue that people are just promoting the instances where something has occurred and getting people scared.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh man...

I was right there with you until that part.

Many? Really? Of course, there are some freaks, but it's such a small part of the population. Much smaller than those that have inflicted violence on gays and transgendered in bathrooms.

I don't know how many there may be, but the anti-discrimination side says they don't have to go to that trouble, they can come and go without that effort.

As a function of small, that's a small group but so is the amount of actual violence inflicted on gay and transgender people in public restrooms. Such incidents are also extremely uncommon.

In that sense this whole thing is a tempest in teapot.

The entire LGBT "community" in the US is estimated at about 4% of the population. Transgenders are estimated at about 0.3% of the population. Honestly that infinitesimal to be going through this much drama. They still have the same rights, but not the right to bend the rights of 99.7% of the US population. There's a solution in the middle here that should work without this much hoo-ha. Even if those numbers are low, it's still stunning that with 19 trillion in debt and all the other massive problems facing the nation this is the hot topic of action and debate.


The truth is that the LGBT community is becoming a tyranny of the minority, focusing far too much of the nation's attention on far too small a set of issues, while pulling us away from the far more serious issues that impact the welfare of many more millions of Americans. I have a bunch of gay friends, but spending this much of the nation's attention on these relatively non-life threatening issues is becoming absurd.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I don't know how many there may be, but the anti-discrimination side says they don't have to go to that trouble, they can come and go without that effort.

As a function of small, that's a small group but so is the amount of actual violence inflicted on gay and transgender people in public restrooms. Such incidents are also extremely uncommon.

In that sense this whole thing is a tempest in teapot.

The entire LGBT "community" in the US is estimated at about 4% of the population. Transgenders are estimated at about 0.3% of the population. Honestly that infinitesimal to be going through this much drama. They still have the same rights, but not the right to bend the rights of 99.7% of the US population. There's a solution in the middle here that should work without this much hoo-ha. Even if those numbers are low, it's still stunning that with 19 trillion in debt and all the other massive problems facing the nation this is the hot topic of action and debate.


The truth is that the LGBT community is becoming a tyranny of the minority, focusing far too much of the nation's attention on far too small a set of issues, while pulling us away from the far more serious issues that impact the welfare of many more millions of Americans. I have a bunch of gay friends, but spending this much of the nation's attention on these relatively non-life threatening issues is becoming absurd.

I get what you're saying, but I'll just with the thought that if the NC law wasn't passed we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'll add though, any minority group that feels disenfranchised should raise their voice. That's what America is all about. Those that want to join their cause to make a larger voice should do so too.

Whether we agree or not on anything, voices must be heard.

Trump and his followers were a minority once too, but we can admit, whether he wins or loses, it will bring about change. That's always good.

[CitizenBBN]

I get what you're saying, but I'll just with the thought that if the NC law wasn't passed we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'll add though, any minority group that feels disenfranchised should raise their voice. That's what America is all about. Those that want to join their cause to make a larger voice should do so too.

Whether we agree or not on anything, voices must be heard.

Trump and his followers were a minority once too, but we can admit, whether he wins or loses, it will bring about change. That's always good.

Raising a voice is fine. What the LGBT community is doing is the same as what Black Lives Matter is doing, which is not to HAVE a debate but to END the debate by screaming prejudice and bigotry at anyone who dares disagree with their views.

Also they are doing it in a way that intimidates and smears people, not in a way that opens a dialog. that isn't raising a voice, that's tyranny of the minority. People are running so scared of being called racist or prejudiced or insensitive they are unwilling to do anything.

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against, but I also don't want voices to be silenced who disagree politically or otherwise b/c they're afraid of being branded a bigot even when untrue.

I disagree with some positions of the self appointed LGBT community, but I'm far from a homophobe, yet that's what I'd be called.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Raising a voice is fine. What the LGBT community is doing is the same as what Black Lives Matter is doing, which is not to HAVE a debate but to END the debate by screaming prejudice and bigotry at anyone who dares disagree with their views.

Also they are doing it in a way that intimidates and smears people, not in a way that opens a dialog. that isn't raising a voice, that's tyranny of the minority. People are running so scared of being called racist or prejudiced or insensitive they are unwilling to do anything.

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against, but I also don't want voices to be silenced who disagree politically or otherwise b/c they're afraid of being branded a bigot even when untrue.

I disagree with some positions of the self appointed LGBT community, but I'm far from a homophobe, yet that's what I'd be called.

Couldn't disagree more.

What happens is that there's cherry picking by the media that says if one person or subset of a group acts in a negative way that they represent the entire group.

It couldn't be further from the truth. Just like people on the right want to think that LGBT and Black Lives Matter is about the violent, disruptive clips they see on their media, it's just as wrong as those on the left that think every Trump rally is about inciting violence, prejudice, bigotry and the like.

It's just wrong.

Just like Trump is resounding a message that is perceived of wrong, same with LGBT and Black Lives Matter groups. Most of all the supporters are good and peaceful people who just have differences from others.