Transgenders and bathrooms -- is there a solution?

[cherdano]

I fully agree. Let's not make a big deal out of nothing.

Well, NC Republicans decided otherwise. This is not a fight the LBGTQ community chose.

[Vampyr]

[Edit to add from Vampyr: It's also frequently about the children. Who, if you actually talk to them about things, rather than deciding for them what's "normal", are able to deal. How many "No, that was his mom. [Friend] has a mommy and a mom." cueing panic from the kid's parent do we see? And children are smarter than we are, or than we think they are. If someone saying "how dare you use that language around my child" seems ludicrous, that child probably knows just fine about trans issues, (and gay issues, and...) too.]

 

In my experience, children do not know about these things, and how they react will depend on which adult explains it to them.

 

Of course, people are more open now, and LGBTQ is portrayed more on TV and in movies, and more sensitively (who remembers Three's Company?), so kids and adults may expand their definition of "normal". But bigoted adults raise bigoted kids, so it may take a while.

[nige1]

Replace "Women" and "Men" with separate rooms dedicated to "WC Stalls" or "Urinals", appropriately labelled.

[barmar]

However, I do favor states having a say so in the matter because what is right for California may not be right for Oklahoma.

Why? Are Californians and Oklahomans different species?

 

This is essentially what the Civil War was fought over: the southern states didn't think the federal government should be dictating whether slavery is right or wrong, it should be up to the states to decide.

 

The general trend regarding human rights is that they're considered universal, not for states to decide. That's why SCOTUS declared that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.

[Phil]

Why? Are Californians and Oklahomans different species?

 

This is essentially what the Civil War was fought over: the southern states didn't think the federal government should be dictating whether slavery is right or wrong, it should be up to the states to decide.

 

The general trend regarding human rights is that they're considered universal, not for states to decide. That's why SCOTUS declared that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.

 

No, but cultural norms should dictate on a state by state basis in the absence of TG individuals being a protected class in the eyes of SCOTUS. Sexual identity is a far cry from race, creed, color or even sexual preference.

[gordontd]

Sexual identity is a far cry from race, creed, color or even sexual preference.

One might argue that gender identity is more fundamental than any of those. It's difficult to even talk of a person without identifying their gender.

[Phil]

One might argue that gender identity is more fundamental than any of those. It's difficult to even talk of a person without identifying their gender.

 

Sure this is the crux.

 

Is sex the same as sexual identity? If no, then how different they are dictates your viewpoint.

[mikeh]

I remember playing in Lille in 1998 (I had written 1994, but it was 1998) and the convention centre toilets shared the same entrance, but women then turned to the right and men to the left. An old woman sat on a stool inside the men's and one was supposed to pay her a small amount of money. She had a clear view of the urinals, as I recall, but didn't seem at all interested:)

 

So the need for completely separate toilets is clearly cultural. If one has any doubt, consider that toilets, in terms of flushing facilities, etc, are a very recent invention in terms of human history, let alone pre-history. Do dogs and cats worry about this? No.

 

We are therefore dealing with fear and bigotry. Fear is useful, in that a rational fear prevents us from assuming too many risks. Fear can become a barrier, however, when the topic we fear doesn't actually threaten us with harm. Indeed, fear is a powerful psychological tool, used by politicians and religious leaders for millennia.

 

Bigotry is a frequent companion of fear, and is equally a tool of the powerful.

 

The best defence to bigotry is the same as to fear of a non-dangerous topic: exposure to the subject. Opposition to gay marriage dropped precipitously once gay people were favourably portrayed in the media and once closeted gays began to feel safer about coming out...more and more people realized that gays are just people, and much of the fear diminished, tho obviously anti-gay sentiment is still very strong in some parts of the world, including in the US and, I admit, in Canada (tho I think far less so here).

 

Trans people are becoming more and more visible, and the medical/psychological professions are more and more understanding and able to assist. But intolerance persists.

 

One point I want to make, and this is almost a universal proposition. I see concern expressed that the problem under discussion is difficult to solve because we have to consider the comfort of the bigots. Bullshit.

 

Affirming the right of the bigot not merely to feel uncomfortable but also to cause others to suffer in order to avoid that discomfort is counter-productive. Attitudes will never change so long as the right of the bigots to feel comfortable by discriminating against those they (irrationally) fear is paramount.

 

Wilde once said that he could resist everything but temptation. I suggest we should tolerate (almost) everything but intolerance.

 

In addition, if one is going to give in to trying to create an equivalence between the discomfort of the bigots and the plight of the trans people, consider this:

 

When was the last time anyone heard of a significant rate of suicide, self-harm, homelessness, under or unemployment being suffered by these bigots as a result of the showing by the community of tolerance and acceptance to a trans person?

 

Now ask yourself that question about those outcomes amongst the trans population.

 

QED.

[barmar]

One point I want to make, and this is almost a universal proposition. I see concern expressed that the problem under discussion is difficult to solve because we have to consider the comfort of the bigots. Bullshit.

I certainly don't want to justify bigotry. But my point in raising this issue in the first place is that I don't consider someone to be a bigot if they don't want to share intimate spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, showers) with someone with different anatomy in the genital area. It's an incredibly ingrained cultural taboo -- if someone accidentally walks into the wrong restroom, they're really embarassed because they know it's wrong.

 

As you point out, not all cultures are the same, so it's not pure human nature, and there's room for change. There are some cultures with even more taboos: orthodox Jews don't allow men and women to pray together.

[Elianna]

I certainly don't want to justify bigotry. But my point in raising this issue in the first place is that I don't consider someone to be a bigot if they don't want to share intimate spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, showers) with someone with different anatomy in the genital area. It's an incredibly ingrained cultural taboo -- if someone accidentally walks into the wrong restroom, they're really embarassed because they know it's wrong.

 

Okay, this I kind of get, somewhat (but don't necessarily agree). If bathroom stalls were completely open, or showers in locker rooms had no curtains, I would definitely feel uncomfortable using them in a mixed gender environment, but to be honest, I would definitely feel uncomfortable using them in a single gender environment, too. As of now, I won't change in a locker room, I'll go somewhere private to change.

 

Where I disagree with the tenor of your post is that I don't think that my discomfort should be catered too. Just because I refuse to change in an open locker room doesn't mean that the world needs to change locker rooms, it means that I need to adapt to the world and either get over my discomfort, or else arrange my life so I don't have to change in front of others.

 

I can't imagine what would be the problem of going to the restroom and using a stall next to someone else who is also using the stall as long as I can close the door for privacy, and that it matters to me what is going on with the other person's body as long as it remains confined to their stall. And if it bothered me, I would arrange my day to minimize using the bathroom in public. That's what I did in high school.

[Vampyr]

Don't forget that bigotry is often associated with unfamiliarity. People who fear the "other" are not necessarily evil, and often change their attitudes when they stop thinking of a person who is different from them as "other". I am <mumble mumble> years old and live in one of the great capitals of the world and I know two trans people (well, there could be others but I don't know they are trans). The two I know of for sure have changed identity while, or just before, I knew them. That is not a lot, and I am sure some people in rural areas don't know any trans people at all. So it is probably up to the mass media to familiarise these people with the "other".

 

There was a show on television called "I am Jazz" about a transsexual teenage girl. What might surprise people is how normal a teenage girl she is. This kind of thing can help dispel people's fears.

[mike777]

I live in the town where this whole BATHROOM issue gained media attention.

 

 

I CAN TELL YOU NO ONE...NOT ONE PERSON I KNOW TALKS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

BTW THE ONE ISSUE PEOPLE DO TALK ABOUT IS SCHOOLS...FOR SOME REASON SCHOOLS IN GENERAL.

DTHE SECOND ISSUE IS ABOUT RACE...HOW THE COPS KILL/HATE BLACKS...SEE REASON ONE ABOVE

 

 

MY BEST GUESS IS THIS WHOLE ISSUE, BATHROOM ISSUE IS ABOUT THE FACT, THE TRUE FACT CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE SEX WITH YOUNG BOYS AND GIRLS NEVER GO TO JAIL

 

ONE BIG EXAMPLE , NOT THE ONLY ONE, IS THE UK WHERE 1400 BOYS AND GIRLS WERE RAPED OVER AND OVER AGAIN....SOMETHING CLOSE TO ZERO CUSTOMERS ARE IN JAIL

[Vampyr]

Friends don't let friends post drunk.

[mike777]

Friends don't let friends post drunk.

 

 

Vamp...this is your response to the fact that perhaps tens of thousands of rapists of young, very 1400 young children are not in jail in 2017 in the UK,,,,..not that 1400 are the only children today

 

 

Not that the response is any better in the rest of Europe or Asia or the USA at this moment.

 

 

see the response to the bathroom issue compared to this issue

[helene_t]

NOT ONE PERSON I KNOW TALKS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Exactly.

 

Obviously this is a non-issue. If there were lots of men who somehow (for example by wearing a burka?) got access to women's bathrooms in order to enjoy the sight of women washing their hands then maybe I could imagine that some people would feel a need to clarify the rules at the local level. But here we are talking about a very small minority, most of whom are probably seen as women by most other bathroom visitors.

 

I wonder if this is just a random non-issue that has been escalated in order to divert attention from other issues, or if t* people have been targeted specifically because they are seen as mascots for the evil liberal elite?

[Vampyr]

Vamp...this is your response to the fact that perhaps tens of thousands of rapists of young, very 1400 young children are not in jail in 2017 in the UK,,,,..not that 1400 are the only children today

 

 

Not that the response is any better in the rest of Europe or Asia or the USA at this moment.

 

 

see the response to the bathroom issue compared to this issue

 

I do not see the connection.

[barmar]

I can't imagine what would be the problem of going to the restroom and using a stall next to someone else who is also using the stall as long as I can close the door for privacy

You're a woman, you don't have to deal with urinals.

 

In some restrooms there's a tiny barrier between them that provides a little bit of privacy, but in many we're totally exposed while we're urinating. Only social pressure keeps us from looking at each other's junk.

[helene_t]

You're a woman, you don't have to deal with urinals.

 

In some restrooms there's a tiny barrier between them that provides a little bit of privacy, but in many we're totally exposed while we're urinating. Only social pressure keeps us from looking at each other's junk.

Right. So the problem is that some perveted androphilic drag-kings might sneek into the bathroom, pretending to be men, and enjoy the sight of the private parts of poor innocent cis-men who are too much in a hurry to go into the wc cabine to protect their own privacy?

 

Do you really believe that anyone with 1/2+ of a brain consider this a serious issue?

 

Isn't it a much bigger problem that if the rules prescribe that boys under the age of (say) five can go with their mum to the ladies' room, someone who was born exactly five years and one hour ago in New York could sneek into a restroom in Hawaii, pretending to be only 4 years, 364 days and 20 hours?

[mycroft]

I've written and killed a number of comments to this over the past couple of days.

 

There is no solution to the original topic title, because there is no problem.

 

The fact that there are people who go to great lengths to reiterate that there is a problem, and go down a number of "but what if..." rabbitholes to manufacture one - which, were they actually happening instead of being theoretical boogeymen, might be fine - is the problem.

 

I don't know what to do about the culture of fear, especially as it is so lucrative for those who propagate it.

 

My own personal solution to the culture of fear is the driving test. Do *I* do anything out of the ordinary to avoid dying in a traffic accident? No. There's a bunch of habits, sure; it costs me $X a year to keep my car in good enough order that it won't be the cause; I drive safely in order to reduce my risk; and I guess I pay for engineers and police officers and ... to ensure that the roads are as safe as possible. How many do more?

 

If the chance of X is lower than the chance of me dying in traffic, then I'm not willing to spend any more effort or money on reducing it. If it's 10 times less likely, I'm not willing to spend *any* effort on reducing it, and will grumble about any money I have to spend. If it's 100 times less likely, you're trying to scare me for reasons of your own, not because I should be scared. If it's 1000 times less likely,...

 

I also realize that the driving test fails in many more cases than it would were I not white, male, (mostly-)straight, (mostly-)Christian, (mostly-)abled, and know that I can pay for both my house, my meals, and my doctor today and next month.

[Phil]

I think ill cruise into all of the ladies restrooms at work next week. I expect the responses will range from:

 

1. Helpful (...clearly hes lost).

2. Horrified (...WTF)

3. Curious (unlikely)

 

I do not expect any response will be ambivalent.

 

Ill let you know how many 'bigoted' people work here.

[Elianna]

You're a woman, you don't have to deal with urinals.

 

In some restrooms there's a tiny barrier between them that provides a little bit of privacy, but in many we're totally exposed while we're urinating. Only social pressure keeps us from looking at each other's junk.

 

And that's why I said stall instead of urinal.

 

But anyway, I don't understand the point you're making.

 

Are you trying to claim that mixed gender urinals wouldn't work because people would then be looking? Granted, I would never use one even if I had one of those tools that allows women to pee standing up while camping, but are you trying to claim that women who do use those would take advantage and look at men's parts? Or that men would then start looking at what's around them? I think that both of these suppositions are silly, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

Anyway, anyone who is afraid of someone looking at their parts should be able to use a stall (with a closed door) and if the room with stalls were open to anyone, I imagine that after some time (perhaps a day or so) no one cares what genitals are in the stall next to you.

 

My ideal set up of restrooms is basically what Trinidad said before: A room with stalls labelled as such, and perhaps a side room (can just be set up behind a privacy barrier if a separate room is not needed) with urinals. There should be at least one bigger stall for people with mobility devices, and a changing table available that's not in a stall. (Side note: I always thought that it was a terrible idea to put the changing table in the big stall, plus why is the changing table only ever in the woman's restroom? Don't fathers ever take babies out in public, and then have to change them?)

 

And everyone washes their hands at the sinks when they leave.

[Elianna]

I think ill cruise into all of the ladies restrooms at work next week. I expect the responses will range from:

 

1. Helpful (...clearly hes lost).

2. Horrified (...WTF)

3. Curious (unlikely)

 

I do not expect any response will be ambivalent.

 

Ill let you know how many 'bigoted' people work here.

 

But what if your work institutes a policy that both restrooms are for anyone, and takes down the signs? Or better yet, labels them as clearly for everyone (at my place we had a male/female symbol on the doors). It's not that people are bigoted, it's that they're used to things the way they're used to, and they don't like change.

 

An even more likely thing to happen: What if your work has two restrooms, a male and a female one, and one becomes broken? I would bet that if that happened, you would not get these reactions, everyone would be accepting of the fact that they had to share "their" restrooms.

[jeffford76]

[W]hy is the changing table only ever in the woman's restroom? Don't fathers ever take babies out in public, and then have to change them?

 

FWIW, changing tables have been in men's restrooms for many years now.

[Vampyr]

I go to plenty of places with one self-contained restroom that is open to everyone, but in general I would prefer to have separate ladies' and men's rooms, and certainly would not like to use a room that also had urinals in it. Simply because, especially in pubs and the like, men's rooms are pretty gross.

 

What Phil above does not understand is that transsexuals will usually look or at least dress like their mental gender, so you would tend not to have "obvious" people of the opposite birth sex entering a restroom.

[Phil]

But what if your work institutes a policy that both restrooms are for anyone, and takes down the signs? Or better yet, labels them as clearly for everyone (at my place we had a male/female symbol on the doors). It's not that people are bigoted, it's that they're used to things the way they're used to, and they don't like change.

 

An even more likely thing to happen: What if your work has two restrooms, a male and a female one, and one becomes broken? I would bet that if that happened, you would not get these reactions, everyone would be accepting of the fact that they had to share "their" restrooms.

 

I think for a very long time that the boys will go to the left and the girls would go to the right like they do now and the norms would not change a whole lot. You wouldnt get the indignation for going in the 'other' RR, but youd still get some funny looks.

 

Mind you, our restrooms are pretty close to each other but isn't that how 95% of commercial buildings are designed?