Despite what either side of the issue might lead you to believe, it is not an open and shut case.

 

For pretty much ever, the standard was that if you have a penis, you use men's restrooms and locker rooms, and if you have a vagina, you use women's restrooms and locker rooms. This has always been a problem for transgendered people, some of whom dress in the style of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. M->F people often were ridiculed/bullied/attacked if they entered a men's room dressed as a woman. F->M people dressed as men are often mistakenly identified as sexual predators there to attack women.

 

For transgendered people, the solution seemed simple: let them use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are.

 

Seems simple but has two major complications:

 

1) There is nobody at the door of restrooms and locker rooms verifying that people with penises who are trying to use women's facilities are actually transgendered. There have already been cases of straight men taking advantage of this rule to expose themselves to and/or get a look at women.

 

2) Even if only transgendered people were to use the other restroom/locker room, there are still plenty of women who just don't want to see a penis while they are in a locker room, and certainly plenty of parents who don't want their teenage daughters exposed to that.

 

While some of the people who favored bills like the one in North Carolina are bigoted, bigotry is clearly not the only reason one might have for supporting this bill.

 

I would propose a compromise that ought to be good enough (but not necessarily ideal) for everybody:

 

A) Any newly constructed buildings must have restrooms/locker rooms for men and women, as well as open/family facilities that can be used by anyone.

 

B) Any existing buildings that have at or above a certain number of restrooms/locker rooms must convert some to open/family facilities.

 

C) Any existing buildings with limited numbers of restrooms/locker rooms that are unable to convert some to open/family facilities must post notices at the entries that they do not have open/family facilities.

 

Restrooms are clearly a much easier fix than places with locker rooms and showers.

 

Also, PayPal and Bryan Adams (and probably most other musicians) = total hypocrites. Both do plenty of business in Muslim countries where transgendered people aren't accommodated and even worse it's actually illegal to be gay. But they needed to take a stand against North Carolina.

 

The recent installation of gender-neutral bathrooms at my school caused surprising outrage.

The recent installation of gender-neutral bathrooms at my school caused surprising outrage.

 

In addition to or in place of regular bathrooms?

I prefer single hole/room bathrooms at bars, so much better.

In addition to or in place of regular bathrooms?

In addition to.

It amazes me that this country spends so much time/energy/money on problems that affect so few people. Either enforce bathroom use based on genitalia or don't. Pick one. Increasing the cost of business/government is not the solution here.

In addition to.

 

If nobody is being forced to use gender-neutral bathrooms, I don't see why that would bother anybody.

It amazes me that this country spends so much time/energy/money on problems that affect so few people. Either enforce bathroom use based on genitalia or don't. Pick one. Increasing the cost of business/government is not the solution here.

 

This issue really has me wondering why we have separate bathrooms to begin with. It seems kind of pointless to me, and it would be a simple solution to the bathroom problem.

 

Locker rooms are obviously a bit trickier of a situation, though.

 

 

Despite what either side of the issue might lead you to believe, it is not an open and shut case.

 

For pretty much ever, the standard was that if you have a penis, you use men's restrooms and locker rooms, and if you have a vagina, you use women's restrooms and locker rooms. This has always been a problem for transgendered people, some of whom dress in the style of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. M->F people often were ridiculed/bullied/attacked if they entered a men's room dressed as a woman. F->M people dressed as men are often mistakenly identified as sexual predators there to attack women.

 

For transgendered people, the solution seemed simple: let them use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are.

 

Seems simple but has two major complications:

 

1) There is nobody at the door of restrooms and locker rooms verifying that people with penises who are trying to use women's facilities are actually transgendered. There have already been cases of straight men taking advantage of this rule to expose themselves to and/or get a look at women.

2) Even if only transgendered people were to use the other restroom/locker room, there are still plenty of women who just don't want to see a penis while they are in a locker room, and certainly plenty of parents who don't want their teenage daughters exposed to that.

 

While some of the people who favored bills like the one in North Carolina are bigoted, bigotry is clearly not the only reason one might have for supporting this bill.

 

I would propose a compromise that ought to be good enough (but not necessarily ideal) for everybody:

 

A) Any newly constructed buildings must have restrooms/locker rooms for men and women, as well as open/family facilities that can be used by anyone.

 

B) Any existing buildings that have at or above a certain number of restrooms/locker rooms must convert some to open/family facilities.

 

C) Any existing buildings with limited numbers of restrooms/locker rooms that are unable to convert some to open/family facilities must post notices at the entries that they do not have open/family facilities.

 

Restrooms are clearly a much easier fix than places with locker rooms and showers.

 

Also, PayPal and Bryan Adams (and probably most other musicians) = total hypocrites. Both do plenty of business in Muslim countries where transgendered people aren't accommodated and even worse it's actually illegal to be gay. But they needed to take a stand against North Carolina.

 

Cite/Link to the bold? As you note, there is no bathroom cop checking to make sure men use the men's room and women use the women's room. So I find it hard to believe that the man who walked into the ladies room to expose himself to ladies did so because transgendered. Simply put, that dude would have just walked into the ladies room and exposed himself anyway...

 

 

It amazes me that this country spends so much time/energy/money on problems that affect so few people. Either enforce bathroom use based on genitalia or don't. Pick one. Increasing the cost of business/government is not the solution here.

 

Not really increasing the cost. If your new building is going to have 6 restrooms, they just have to be 2 men, 2 women, 2 neutral instead of 3 men and 3 women. If your existing building has 3 men and 3 women, just take one of each and slap a neutral sign over the men/women sign.

Cite/Link to the bold? As you note, there is no bathroom cop checking to make sure men use the men's room and women use the women's room. So I find it hard to believe that the man who walked into the ladies room to expose himself to ladies did so because transgendered. Simply put, that dude would have just walked into the ladies room and exposed himself anyway...

 

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/10...college-campus/

 

But without laws barring people with penises from going into women's rooms, it's not illegal to go in there. Believe it or not, sometimes laws are a deterrent to bad behavior.

Is the unlawful action entering the womens bathroom or exposing yourself to others there? Women's bathrooms stalls in them. Fairly easy to keep a law on the books to prevent that.

Despite what either side of the issue might lead you to believe, it is not an open and shut case.

 

For pretty much ever, the standard was that if you have a penis, you use men's restrooms and locker rooms, and if you have a vagina, you use women's restrooms and locker rooms. This has always been a problem for transgendered people, some of whom dress in the style of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. M->F people often were ridiculed/bullied/attacked if they entered a men's room dressed as a woman. F->M people dressed as men are often mistakenly identified as sexual predators there to attack women.

 

For transgendered people, the solution seemed simple: let them use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are.

 

Seems simple but has two major complications:

 

1) There is nobody at the door of restrooms and locker rooms verifying that people with penises who are trying to use women's facilities are actually transgendered. There have already been cases of straight men taking advantage of this rule to expose themselves to and/or get a look at women.

 

2) Even if only transgendered people were to use the other restroom/locker room, there are still plenty of women who just don't want to see a penis while they are in a locker room, and certainly plenty of parents who don't want their teenage daughters exposed to that.

 

While some of the people who favored bills like the one in North Carolina are bigoted, bigotry is clearly not the only reason one might have for supporting this bill.

 

I would propose a compromise that ought to be good enough (but not necessarily ideal) for everybody:

 

A) Any newly constructed buildings must have restrooms/locker rooms for men and women, as well as open/family facilities that can be used by anyone.

 

B) Any existing buildings that have at or above a certain number of restrooms/locker rooms must convert some to open/family facilities.

 

C) Any existing buildings with limited numbers of restrooms/locker rooms that are unable to convert some to open/family facilities must post notices at the entries that they do not have open/family facilities.

 

Restrooms are clearly a much easier fix than places with locker rooms and showers.

 

Also, PayPal and Bryan Adams (and probably most other musicians) = total hypocrites. Both do plenty of business in Muslim countries where transgendered people aren't accommodated and even worse it's actually illegal to be gay. But they needed to take a stand against North Carolina.

 

Paypal didn't threaten to stop allowing transactions in North Carolina, they decided not to employ people there if they needed to follow that law. I do not see any Paypal offices in Muslim countries.

Despite what either side of the issue might lead you to believe, it is not an open and shut case.

 

For pretty much ever, the standard was that if you have a penis, you use men's restrooms and locker rooms, and if you have a vagina, you use women's restrooms and locker rooms. This has always been a problem for transgendered people, some of whom dress in the style of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. M->F people often were ridiculed/bullied/attacked if they entered a men's room dressed as a woman. F->M people dressed as men are often mistakenly identified as sexual predators there to attack women.

 

For transgendered people, the solution seemed simple: let them use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are.

 

Seems simple but has two major complications:

 

1) There is nobody at the door of restrooms and locker rooms verifying that people with penises who are trying to use women's facilities are actually transgendered. There have already been cases of straight men taking advantage of this rule to expose themselves to and/or get a look at women.

 

2) Even if only transgendered people were to use the other restroom/locker room, there are still plenty of women who just don't want to see a penis while they are in a locker room, and certainly plenty of parents who don't want their teenage daughters exposed to that.

 

While some of the people who favored bills like the one in North Carolina are bigoted, bigotry is clearly not the only reason one might have for supporting this bill.

 

I would propose a compromise that ought to be good enough (but not necessarily ideal) for everybody:

 

A) Any newly constructed buildings must have restrooms/locker rooms for men and women, as well as open/family facilities that can be used by anyone.

 

B) Any existing buildings that have at or above a certain number of restrooms/locker rooms must convert some to open/family facilities.

 

C) Any existing buildings with limited numbers of restrooms/locker rooms that are unable to convert some to open/family facilities must post notices at the entries that they do not have open/family facilities.

 

Restrooms are clearly a much easier fix than places with locker rooms and showers.

 

Also, PayPal and Bryan Adams (and probably most other musicians) = total hypocrites. Both do plenty of business in Muslim countries where transgendered people aren't accommodated and even worse it's actually illegal to be gay. But they needed to take a stand against North Carolina.

 

I get what you mean with the bolded, but the reality is this, the reason they probably took a stand against NC is because it resides in the USA! You know the country that's allegedly the greatest country on earth. That being said, in these muslim countries, some are theocracies and you aren't going to change anyone's thought process there. When in Rome...

 

The USA prides itself on freedom and all that kool-aid type s*** they attempt to feed the masses, yet they have a desire to limit the rights of people they deem "not kosher". If you ask me, NC are the hypocrites for trampling on the rights of human beings. f*** THEM!

Paypal didn't threaten to stop allowing transactions in North Carolina, they decided not to employ people there if they needed to follow that law. I do not see any Paypal offices in Muslim countries.

Not Muslim but their international HQ is Singapore, where it's illegal to be gay. Then again I have a rough time time equating the bathroom stuff as anti gay. I'm not sure why it would matter what your sexual preference is here. Trans is about what you identify yourself as.

Weird fact: Iran is actually very accepting of transgendered people. There are more sex change operations there than anywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, part of that is due to equally strong anti-gay ideology, so gay people are pressured into gender-changing operations rather than just being able to be gay.

What do NC legislatures imagine should happen to someone who has completely undergone gender change therapy and surgery and lives and looks fully as their preferred gendered? NC's law would seem to require someone who's fully FtM transitioned to continue using facilities for women since that's the "birth gender."

Not really increasing the cost. If your new building is going to have 6 restrooms, they just have to be 2 men, 2 women, 2 neutral instead of 3 men and 3 women. If your existing building has 3 men and 3 women, just take one of each and slap a neutral sign over the men/women sign.

 

I don't think engineers/planners would agree with you. They calculate the number of bathrooms that are necessary for the anticipated capacity of the building/floor/unit. Getting rid of 2 bathrooms for "other" messes with those plans. You're basically making a multi-use bathroom a single use bathroom. In some instances it would be an easy fix, but not in all cases.

 

But again, why are we making these changes in all buildings for very, very, very few people? Either tell them to go to the bathroom based on their genitalia, or make everyone else deal with it. I'd vote for the former, but really don't have strong objections to the latter. If you're a creep-o, you're going to be a creep-o whether you're allowed to be in the bathroom or not.

This doesn't need to be complicated. It's functional. You go to the bathroom with the equipment that best matches your own equipment. What you were before is irrelevant. No laws need to change. And let's be honest, the only reason the laws are being changed is bigotry. There is zero evidence of any likelihood of risk to people in this situation, and despite the fact that trans people have been doing exactly what I suggest for a long time, how many reports of issues have there been?

 

These laws are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. It's just another way for closed-minded people to lash out. Like the fights against gay marriage, after a while, these efforts will fade away or be struck down in court.

 

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/10...college-campus/

 

But without laws barring people with penises from going into women's rooms, it's not illegal to go in there. Believe it or not, sometimes laws are a deterrent to bad behavior.

 

It's still illegal to film the women showering or expose yourself to the women. So if the only thing separating these guys from legal and illegal behavior is the sign on the door, I'm not sure that the laws are deterring the bad behavior.

 

 

I don't think engineers/planners would agree with you. They calculate the number of bathrooms that are necessary for the anticipated capacity of the building/floor/unit. Getting rid of 2 bathrooms for "other" messes with those plans. You're basically making a multi-use bathroom a single use bathroom. In some instances it would be an easy fix, but not in all cases.

 

Do building codes require gendered bathrooms though? I don't see why you couldn't have every bathroom be non-gendered.

This doesn't need to be complicated. It's functional. You go to the bathroom with the equipment that best matches your own equipment. What you were before is irrelevant. No laws need to change. And let's be honest, the only reason the laws are being changed is bigotry. There is zero evidence of any likelihood of risk to people in this situation, and despite the fact that trans people have been doing exactly what I suggest for a long time, how many reports of issues have there been?

 

These laws are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. It's just another way for closed-minded people to lash out. Like the fights against gay marriage, after a while, these efforts will fade away or be struck down in court.

 

What if you're transgendered and outwardly appear to be one sex, but you haven't undergone the surgery? Should a person with female genitalia who presents himself and looks very much like a man use the women's restrooms, or vice-versa?

 

But as you said, these laws are looking for a problem that doesn't exist. If some man wanted to dress as a woman to enter women's restrooms to leer at other women, there's nothing stopping them from doing that now and this law changes nothing.

What do NC legislatures imagine should happen to someone who has completely undergone gender change therapy and surgery and lives and looks fully as their preferred gendered? NC's law would seem to require someone who's fully FtM transitioned to continue using facilities for women since that's the "birth gender."

 

I do think they have gone too far with that part, of course that's really unenforceable anyway. Nobody is checking birth certificates.

Do building codes require gendered bathrooms though? I don't see why you couldn't have every bathroom be non-gendered.

 

I bet they do, but I don't know for sure.

 

And wouldn't you need to have differences between bathrooms because of the urinal issue?

I bet they do, but I don't know for sure.

 

And wouldn't you need to have differences between bathrooms because of the urinal issue?

 

None of the bathrooms in my office have urinals even though they're marked male/female (they're all one-or-two toilet bathrooms). But some quick googling seems to indicate that yeah, for office spaces there needs to be separate, gendered bathrooms.