Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

Public Bathroom Laws and Policies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Wouldn't it be more "radical" to keep your body the way it is and live /act as you are, rather than change it to fit the constructs you so despise? :D

Dont you mean wouldnt it make since for all people to conform to the way you believe. Dont you mean force those of us that are transexual to not live as the sex we believe we are. According to harry benjamin in order for us to have our surgery then we have to live and work as that sex for one year. This means using the womens restroom, this means sitting down to pee. My wife of whom knew about my gender dysphoria before we got married goes with me to the restroom. In order to avoid conflict should I need to use the ladies room she will go with me. Apparently so many people in this world are uneducated about those of us that are transexual.

Let me also point out and I know some of these posts have been here awhile, but let me point out that transexuals dont pretend to be who we are, there is no pretending when you do something 24 hours a day, 7days a week. But others that are transgender and just dress to do it as a past time , now thats pretending.

I understand everyones concerns here but like in my situation, I have changed my name legally and my licence protrays me as female including in gender(I have to wait til after my surgery to officially change my birth certificate). I was able to change my Drivers Licence by way of my letter from my gender therapist...that clearly states that I am living my life as a female and that I have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Now those that are cross dressers and such, do not get these letters and cannot do the same so now legaly if a lady complains about someone she doesnot believe should be in the ladies room then the owner should have the right to ask for ID and if the ID does not portray the correct gender, then the owner should be aloud to bar them from the property. Now getting back to the ID change if you have been convicted of a sex crime or felony at that, they should not be aloud to persue being transgender or transexual, therefor putting a stop to all this fear of a rapist being in the ladies room.

Trust me people I understand your fears, I have 4 daughters from a previous marriage and yes they are very aware of me and who I am and have accepted me. But thats beside the point I love my daughters and wouldnt want a rapist in the restroom with them.

Remember there is a difference between a cross-dresser and a transexual, Cross-dressers do pretend and transexuals do not.

Ravyn

"If I tell you I am Female, and my Drivers Licence shows that I am Female, then I am Female"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont you mean wouldnt it make since for all people to conform to the way you believe. Dont you mean force those of us that are transexual to not live as the sex we believe we are.

No, I obviously don't. If I meant those things, I would have said them. This idea of "force" is your projection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LISTEN. You've just called my position "nonsense" so I think it's way overgenerous for me to even respond to you.

In fact I won't. Not until you apologize. I don't have to put up with abuse for daring to offer some truth around here.

But your not offering truth here. Your offering an opinion with out any factual statements at all. You are DARING to off an OPINION, and your hoping others will jump on the "inspector" band wagon. Sorry not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There can be excuses based on context, of course, but I don't know what you're asking for here. It is not sensible to wait before the cudgel has physically connected with your skull before reacting. A man in the womens' room is up to no good. This is a perfectly fair assumption.

It simply is as you put it, an "assumption". Those that are transexuals are usually on hormones or HRT as it's called. With this medication, the sex drives becomes nonexistant. There fore I can safely and correctly say that going to the womans restroom during the year, "Real Life Test", is simply a matter of relieving oneself.

Please everyone, do your research.

I am a transsexual. I am living this, I can tell you from personal experience that, if I go into the womans restroom, which I have not done yet due to not having the ability to pass, it will be a matter of relieving myself and not interested in seeing the women in there for any reason at all.

Again please do your research regarding these matters. So many people on this subject have some things right but alot of things wrong. It's disheartening to see that we as a community are not more informed.

Point of fact: transsexuals are not only men transitioning to women but also women transitioning to men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then in my opinion you have not read my posts carefully enough to effectively argue against me and it would be an exercise in frustration (for me) for you to continue it before you have adequately understood me.

There is also the possibility that you might not have written as clear a post as you think. You might be performing a context imposition by claiming "If you had read my posts carefully, you would effectively argue against me" when the case might be that you may not have stated your point clearly enough, or firmly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jayla, why are you resurrecting this ancient thread? Do you think anything will be accomplished by berating a member who hasn't posted in months?

Catch a clue, people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jayla, why are you resurrecting this ancient thread? Do you think anything will be accomplished by berating a member who hasn't posted in months?

Catch a clue, people.

Catch a clue? This is an ongoing issues. I dont' care if the person posted yesterday or years ago. My comments are still valid. The fact that I am "resuurrecting" an old thread is because this is an area in my personal life that I feel strongly about. Sorry if it has offended you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't offend me, it's just kind of pointless to point your arguments toward one particular person or formulation when there's next to no chance of getting that person to respond. If you think he made an error in principle and you have an argument against that, then point out the principle you think he's using and refute it, using your own experience as a base. That way you can get some constructive discussion from people other than the original person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an ongoing issues.
What is an ongoing issue. What exactly are you arguing for? That Inspector has a particular view of sex? Contact him. Do you have something general -- something non ad-hominem -- to propose. I agree with him that it is a pretty good assumption that a man in the womens' room is up to no good. I don't see anywhere that he said that it is proof positive. It is pretty good and defeasible assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is an ongoing issue. What exactly are you arguing for? That Inspector has a particular view of sex? Contact him. Do you have something general -- something non ad-hominem -- to propose. I agree with him that it is a pretty good assumption that a man in the womens' room is up to no good. I don't see anywhere that he said that it is proof positive. It is pretty good and defeasible assumption.

The ongoing issue is the need for Transsexual's to use the restroom of there real gender without bias or pursecution. The DSM-IV requires it. This means that a bunch of people a whole lot smarter than me, got together and figured it out and that is what they came up with. Is it law, not to my knowledge. Should it be MADE law, that is up for debate.

I am arguing that this be allowed. The argument that inspector made is a generalized one, based on the acts of the few, to screw over the many. It's not fair, but there it is. You agree with arguement, and that is your right. However, it's an assumption, as neither you nor I can say what ALL other trans people have in mind when going in the restroom. I know from my PERSONAL experience, that when going to the restroom, i go to relieve myself. I can only guess, that when I start using the womens room, that will be the same goal I have.

I do not have anything more "general" to propose. I do not have the answers here. I do know that it's not right to be prosecuted for using the bathroom.

"It doesn't offend me, it's just kind of pointless to point your arguments toward one particular person or formulation when there's next to no chance of getting that person to respond. If you think he made an error in principle and you have an argument against that, then point out the principle you think he's using and refute it, using your own experience as a base. That way you can get some constructive discussion from people other than the original person."

I am sorry. Apparently you feel strongly about this. My points are valid. I am not actually expecting a response from that particular individual. I am writing what I write for all to see. If someone agrees with Inspectors point of view then what I write is directed at them.

Plus isn't it MY time to waste in replying to someone that might never reply back?

Hopefully this will put an end to the nonsence of "why" i am posting and get us back on the subject of the thread. Bottom line, my personal reasons for posting are mine alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ongoing issue is the need for Transsexual's to use the restroom of there real gender without bias or pursecution. The DSM-IV requires it.

....

I am arguing that this be allowed.

You haven't shown that there is any such need (by "real gender" I assume you mean the psychological one. Twig and berries are also real). To be coherent, your position at minimum would have to be that there must be at least 4 kinds of restrooms: males-who-are-men, males-who-are-women, females-who-are-women and females-who-are-men. I'm leaving out the question of whether homosexual men and women should have some special facility. It seems pretty clear to me what you should do is go to the men's room, until you get your body rearranged so that you can at least physically pass as a woman. The relationship between the restroom you use and your "gender" isn't about your attitude towards yourself, it's about the rights of others. A woman has a right to be secure against sexual assault. If you want to argue that there should be just unisex bathrooms, go ahead and make the argument.
Bottom line, my personal reasons for posting are mine alone.
That's the kind of irrational response that will get ever more critical replies. We're not interested in your emotional state, we are interested in well-reasoned conclusions. I'm not sure what your conclusion is, but I am guessing it is that there should only be unisex bathrooms and therefore no prohibition against men using the ladies rooms (since there would be no such thing). But you haven't given any reason to support that position; you haven't given any reasoning in support of the conclusion that you should be an exception to a general rule. If all you have is anger, there there's no point in posting a rant here. That's not the purpose of this forum. Please note the banner -- we emphasize reason. Where is your reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ongoing issue is the need for Transsexual's to use the restroom of there real gender without bias or pursecution.

The only legitimate "right" I can identify here is the "right" to use the public bathroom. One of them. Are you not allowed to use the men's room?

As far as the "need" to use the one of the "real gender", you may very well have that need. The question is do you have the right to, as a biological male. Why do you think you do, while other males don't?

I know from my PERSONAL experience, that when going to the restroom, i go to relieve myself. I can only guess, that when I start using the womens room, that will be the same goal I have.

If your ONLY goal is to relieve yourself, why does the gender of the restroom you are using matter?

I submit that it doesn't, so what other goals do you have?

When I ask of other goals, I don't mean sexual goals, btw., only psychological ones.-I'm implying that you are seeking self-respect and an identity out of the approval of others, to the extent that you feel the need to have your decision recognized by society.

I submit to you that whatever society decides has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong in seeking sex-change. Being allowed or not in the women's restroom will do nothing to make your decision any more right or wrong than it is, neither does our opinion on this forum.

Why should it matter then that you are?

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A woman has a right to be secure against sexual assault.

And a driver has a right to be secure against assault by other drivers who are too busy fiddling with their GPS to pay attention to the road. Should we ban using GPS while driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And a driver has a right to be secure against assault by other drivers who are too busy fiddling with their GPS to pay attention to the road. Should we ban using GPS while driving?
What does this have to do with anything that I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit right off the top that I only scanned the first page and the last two pages. But I didn't see anyone address the issue of presumption of innocence, so I'd like to.

But let me preface my post by reiterating the argument that discussion of public facilities is nearly pointless. The tragedy of the commons isn't that everyone has a claim, but rather that no one has a legitimate claim. We can bicker over who gets access to "public" (read: unowned) resources until we are all blue in the face, but there is no reasonable solution because there is no way to properly introduce private property rights.

That said, I think the arguments that anatomical men (of which pre-op transsexuals are members) boils down to the presumption of guilt on the part of RLT MtFs (translation: Male to Female trans-women undergoing their Real Life Test, a la Harry Benjamin SoC). Essentially, by saying that a gender-divided restroom facility exists to allow women secure peace-of-mind away from men is to presume that a class of people is guilty without actually having probable cause. Another way to say it, though, is that a man in the restroom can be presumed to be a suspicious character, which grants probable cause.

The idea of presumption of innocence was put in place with the express recognition that our justice system prefers to err on the side of letting a few criminals free rather than curtailing the freedoms of innocent individuals. The plaintiff in a criminal case is bound to establish proof and the defendant, if he so pleases, may remain entire silent. If the case isn't made, then the defendant must be recognied as not-guilty and released.

And in point of fact, our entire executive branch operates around this principle. The police must have warrants, signed by someone qualified to judge the merit of their allegations. They must observe actual crimes to act without a warrant. They must have probable cause to act on their suspicions of foul play, and these snap-judgment calls are subject to review by the courts.

Why do I point all of this out? Because it is vital that we not punish the innocent, even if that means having to work harder to nail the true criminals.

I personally find it grossly offensive to suggest a correlation between the transgendered and sexual predators. There is no basis for the comparison whatsoever. And as for the AMA designation of gender dysphoria as a psychological illness, this is highly debatable, just as was the similar designation by the AMA of homosexuality in past decades.

In this forum, without definite references to reliable research into the true nature of non-normative sexual behavior and identification, is completely arbitrary to assert that homosexuals or the transgendered are confused, or traumatized, or in any other way psychologically deficient or aberrant. And the presumption that their use of facilities in accordance with their own identified gender and standards of care is suspicious, let alone guilty, is not only premature, but just plain out of line.

In a just society, as a private property owner, whether you provide restroom facilities is your right, and you may dictate how they are used, but if you want to be rational about it, then you need to consider the entire context of the issue. This includes not only the essential purpose of separating the sexes for bladder and bowl relief (which in my opinion is a pander to the puritanical holdovers of this country), but also the implementation of the service.

Observe that so-called public facilities are made from flimsy metals and plastics, vulnerable to even moderate vandalism. (I believe the absence of graffiti and other damage in a bathroom is a major clue to the gentility and etiquette of its patrons.) The stall pieces invariably have wide spaces between them, practically inviting anyone to peek through them. The separators stop short of the ceiling by several feet, allowing all but the shortest of people to stand on the toilet and look over.

As for protection from predators, if a restroom has enough traffic, there is no way a predator could engage in anything but the most covert of observation, let alone an actual assault. And if a restroom has very little or no traffic, there is nothing preventing an individual from surreptitiously following a potential victim into a restroom and having his way with her. (Yes, I'll use the masculine for the predator and the feminine for the victim because statistically that's just the way it goes. But the facilities allow for any combination.)

I think the whole problem is born of a massively non-objective social and justice system and that if private property rights were respected, police policy and procedure were properly established, and medical and "moral" legislation were just (read: essentially abolished), this would be a complete non-issue. And since this is not the case today, the best solution that can be imagined will be a highly compromised one, leaving everyone dissatisfied, as is the tendency of compromise.

Rachel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps some clarity would help here:

The purpose of having a men's and women's restroom is to keep the people with penises away from unwilling womenfolk while they have their pants off.

I honestly don't care how gender-confused individuals live their lives or what they think they are - it's their life and so forth. But if you have a penis, you must stay away from the place where women take off their pants; at least until you get the thing removed. This trumps anyone's fragile little psyche.

You know, it sounds like you're spewing out slogans in complete ignorance of actual principles.

There are more steps to explaining the reasoning behind any phenomenom than you seem to understand. For example, the concept of gender is to make it simpler to explain the various differences between men and women, so that we don't have to keep listing out all the differences as we go along.

However, AS a concept, its basis must be in observation. If some other observation contradicts the concept-as-it-is-now, then the obervation contradicting it isn't wrong, the concept is wrong. This is the fundamental principle that existence has primacy over consciousness.

What does this have to do with anything that I said?

It's an analogy, which is valid QUA shortcut to actual argument. Instead of pretending that he has deviated from the subject, ask him to explain in detail why the analogy is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can bicker over who gets access to "public" (read: unowned) resources until we are all blue in the face, but there is no reasonable solution because there is no way to properly introduce private property rights.
By "public property" (which exists), we mean "government-owned property", which clarifies that it is owned, not unowned. With government-owned property, yes, there simply is no issue of the individual property-owner's rights being dispositive for deciding policy questions about who gets to use the john. The rules have to be rationally and objectively justified. Then what should be the rule regarding toilets in the courthouse?
Essentially, by saying that a gender-divided restroom facility exists to allow women secure peace-of-mind away from men is to presume that a class of people is guilty without actually having probable cause.
This could justify entirely eliminating the distinction between men's rooms and women's rooms in government toilets, but it could not justify any policy regarding transsexuals as contrasted to normal men and women. The question is whether there is a rational foundation for having segregated toilets. First, is it the case that the government may have sex-segregated toilets? The answer is, clearly yes. Doing so violates nobody's rights -- everybody gets to pee, and no person has a right to pee in the same room as members of the opposite sex. Second, is it the case that the government must have sex-segregated toilets? The answer is, no: in fact, it is not even necessary that the government have toilets at all. Now here's a third question: is it absolutely necessary that there be closable doors on the stalls of government toilets? No, not absolutely; but it is very hard to imagine a situation where it would be necessary to have doorless stalls. Perhaps if there is some serious issue regarding crimes being committed in the stalls.

But should government toilets generally have stalls with doors that close? Yes, because even though it's physically possible to do your business in front of society, most people feel pretty uncomfortable doing so, and it does not serve any legitimate government interest to generally deprive people of this bit of privacy. In other words, the cultural fact that we want some privacy when doing our private business is a fact that the government may consider in establishing a general toilet policy.

One specific instance of that general interest in privacy is that men typically feel uncomfortable going to the bathroom with women hanging around outside the stall, and women feel the same way. If you don't like that fact, I suggest that you engage in some kind of educational program to widen the appeal of unisex johns. If the idea had merit, you could persuade private concerns to adopt unisex johns on their property. If this is actually an appealing idea to people and it catches on, then the cultural discomfort issue would be moot, and their would be no rational reason to have sex-segregated toilets just on government property.

Another way to say it, though, is that a man in the restroom can be presumed to be a suspicious character, which grants probable cause.
In the current context, that is certainly so. You have very good reason to believe that the person has some bad thing in mind (maybe just harassment and not rape).
The idea of presumption of innocence was put in place with the express recognition that our justice system prefers to err on the side of letting a few criminals free rather than curtailing the freedoms of innocent individuals.
That reasoning only refers to the standards for criminal conviction. Toilet-invasion is closer to a civil dispute, where a woman's right to pee without men lurking outside the stall must also be considered.
Why do I point all of this out? Because it is vital that we not punish the innocent, even if that means having to work harder to nail the true criminals.
The issue then would be, did the accused violate a law, in which case the burden of proof argument would be relevant. There would have to be proof that the man did enter a women's room unlawfully. The issue is not whether he should be convicted for attempted rape, should he be convicted of cross-gender toilet invasion.
I personally find it grossly offensive to suggest a correlation between the transgendered and sexual predators.
Yes, but as I've pointed out, this transgender issue is a total red herring. It would be highly irrational and unjust to allow only transsexual men to enter the women's room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but as I've pointed out, this transgender issue is a total red herring. It would be highly irrational and unjust to allow only transsexual men to enter the women's room.

Exactly how is someone who will certainly become a person of a different gender a red herring?

Granted, it can be hard to tell, but there is an objective solution: Pre-op Transgenders must have an appointment in one year, non-cancellable, to receive an operation and receive a special proof to put on their ID, so when they're challenged they can show their ID.

This is far from irrational and unjust, since there IS a characteristic on which to differentiate: That which WILL, with certainty, BE. In this case, a change in gender which will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly how is someone who will certainly become a person of a different gender a red herring?
If you understand why it is right that there be sex-segregated toilets (respecting the interests of the majority), you ought to be able to figure out why the mental state of a miniscule minority (transsexuals) or a small minority (gays) or a perhaps larger minority (weird straight men) should matter. Who cares that there's an objective way to identify transsexuals -- it simply doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you understand why it is right that there be sex-segregated toilets (respecting the interests of the majority), you ought to be able to figure out why the mental state of a miniscule minority (transsexuals) or a small minority (gays) or a perhaps larger minority (weird straight men) should matter. Who cares that there's an objective way to identify transsexuals -- it simply doesn't matter.

The number of people in whose interests something might be is the red herring. Laws aren't there to promote anyone's interests EXCEPT where RIGHTS are involved. That democracy requires majority rule is a technicality and is the only way to represent the fact that all people are equal politically. It doesn't mean that what the majority says is actually the correct course of action. This includes interests, no matter how legitimate these interests are, which are not the same as rights.

Furthermore, from what I know of transsexualism people can be (though not always are) born with the anatomy of one gender but with their brain structure being that of the opposite sex. This is different than the wiki article on transsexuals in that the wiki article deals with people who WANT TO BE the other gender. In that case, would you prefer that a person get a brain transplant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laws aren't there to promote anyone's interests EXCEPT where RIGHTS are involved.
And since there is no "right for a transsexual to use the women's room", that pretty much should end the discussion. You ought to be arguing for a general elimination of gender-segregated toilets on government property. And yet you're not, for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advocating for uni-sex bathrooms doesn't address the real issue. (*) In the context of segregated facilities, the question is what standard will be used to determine gender.

It is incorrect to use the term "transsexual man" to refer to an anatomically male transsexual. The correct term is actually transsexual woman. The short-hand is MtF (Male-to-Female) in description of the anatomical change, but the prevailing gender is actual that being transitioned to, not from.

Also, if you want the term "public" to refer to "government owned" in order to keep the issue focused on what an objective policy should be, I've no quarrel with that. But to claim that "respecting the interests of the majority" is a valid standard for anything is to concede the whole notion of objective rights. Allegedly respecting the allegedly interests of the majority is exactly why we have non-objective law, like taxes, regulations, and nationalized industries.

You assert that there is no "right for a transsexual to use the women's room", but that is exactly the issue under discussion. Your assertion is just another way of saying that you don't recognize trans-women as women. If your position is the same as those expressed before in this thread, this is because you are using anatomy as the sole factor in your determination. (**)

Rather than argue that anatomy alone is an inadequate standard, let me pause here. If we can't agree on this much, then there isn't any point in continuing. Is what I have so far acceptable?

Rachel

(*) I addressed uni-sex bathrooms obliquely when I characterized the resources devoted to restroom facilities as flimsy and inadequate.

(**) The standard of "personal comfort" is non-objective as can be seen in such examples as when women who look like men (I know someone in this position - an XX woman who has strongly masculine facial and skeletal features) are "allowed" to use the women's restrooms and the complainants are invited to bear their discomfort in silence or themselves leave, and as when homosexuals are "permitted" to use the restroom of their anatomy. Obviously, neither group is "allowed" or "permitted" but are rather expected and even required to use the appropriate facilities. Discomfort with someones looks and discomfort with someones allegedly attitude (i.e. being attracted to members of the same sex), and even discomfort with someones alleged predilections are none of them standards superior to the standard of actual gender.

And as for the matter of alleged predilections, it is a non-sequitor to invalidate the argument of presumption of innocence simply because I described its application in criminal cases. The principle is in fact applicable to all contexts. And in this case, it is unjust to presume that someones outward appearance or sexual orientation makes them a potential threat or even merely a source of discomfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advocating for uni-sex bathrooms doesn't address the real issue.
I suggest you start by identifying what you think the "real issue" is.
In the context of segregated facilities, the question is what standard will be used to determine gender.
Okay, genitalia.
It is incorrect to use the term "transsexual man" to refer to an anatomically male transsexual.
No, "transsexual man" is correct, and "transsexual woman" would refer to a physical woman who identifies herself as a man. (When the operation is over, it's simply "man", "woman"). Sex is defined by genitalia.
Also, if you want the term "public" to refer to "government owned" in order to keep the issue focused on what an objective policy should be, I've no quarrel with that.
Good, because in non-governmental property, there can be no general rule other than "whatever the property owner states".
You assert that there is no "right for a transsexual to use the women's room", but that is exactly the issue under discussion.
Indeed. If you want to prove that there is a "right for a transsexual to use the women's room", like other objective property rights, then I await your argument.
Your assertion is just another way of saying that you don't recognize trans-women as women.
Actually, I'm saying that a man, regardless of mental state, is never a woman: this is a basis application of the law of identity.

I'm looking for your argument that a person's mental state is what imbues them with this special "right". Why cannot a gay man use the women's room; why cannot a straight man use the women's room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...