This is crazy.
And what problem was this law designed to address?
No therapist or medical doctor will be there to back him up.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Trans women and men are involved in assaults all the freaking time, in AZ and elsewhere -- as the victims.
Although I will agree that Arizona is a horrible place. But climate change is soon going to make it unlivable, so there's that.
And while I'm at least partly sure you're playing devil's advocate, do you really think there are nearly the number of urine fetishists waiting to hop into something slinky and prowl around Arizona's public restrooms in the hopes of catching something hot and yellow as there are legitimately transgendered people being forced into places they don't want to be?
Dan would probably know the ratio of trans people in the general population (tiny) to the ratio of creepster pee fetishists (probably less tiny).
Having transwomen using a women's washroom would merely be the gateway of opportunity for pedophiles.
All this bill does is harass trans* people for being who they are.
As they'd most likely believe cross dressing would be demeaning to their male identity.
I mean, what do you think they're up to in women's restrooms? Do you think they inspect each others' genitals with magnifying glasses while they shit?
But maybe I'm being too hard on you. After all, if you're dumb enough to be transphobic, you're probably just too dumb to read the article that invalidated your points before you even made them. Poor thing.
You might want to re-think your baseless desire to control how people identify themselves before you go around levying that "thought police" accusation against people. The irony just makes you look even dumber.
Congratulations. As far as irrational fears go, yours rates up there with being afraid of killer klowns from outer space.
Easy way to combat this law, should it pass: trans people go to public venues and use the bathroom like the law mandates. Eagerly await backlash against the law by citizens sick of boys in the girls' room, girls in the men's room.
Hint: it means afraid of, which she so is it's fucking hysterical.
Where do I sign up?
Frankly, I've been skeeved out by some cis-women walking around naked in locker rooms - seriously, I do NOT want to see your bits on display. Exhibitionism isn't okay without the viewers' consent, no matter who you are.
However, restrooms are either single user or have stall doors. I've never seen a vagina on display in a public bathroom, so I do NOT know what the REAL problem is.
I think it's because I am a woman with relatively low strength and mobility, and I have to employ cognitive dissonance to feel safe using a public toilet. I really don't want to recognise that anyone bigger and stronger than me can just walk in and attack me, in a place from which I could not escape and where nobody would see.
All my life I have thought of ladies' toilets as safe spaces, because all other women, like me, think of the toilet as a safe space and would not violate that; and because all men were conditioned in their youth to feel horror and shame at entering ladies' toilets. Of course neither of these things are true. But opening up the idea that there is nothing to stop someone bigger and stronger than me coming into a closed-off public space does create fear and anxiety.
Rightwing political arseholes therefore have a brilliant way to whip up unifying rage and fear among women, and among some men who see themselves as women's protectors. They can 'defeat' a 'threat' which everyone can safely get worked up about, because it's nowhere near any of the real issues about attacks on women, and because the victims of their 'solution' are a much-misunderstood minority.
God I feel depressed now.
@36 Did you even read that post you dullard twat?
I see all sides of this issue. The birth certificate litmus test is outrageous, along with the draconian penalties--Arizona really is the asshole of America. But on the other hand, this bill is obviously trying to draw a line in the sand against activists in the LGBT community who are trying to get bathroom rights put into law.
Personally I don't give a fuck. I went to Brown, where we had unisex bathrooms in the dorms. But the problem is this--how do you determine who is transsexual? Drivers license seems a sensible option. Because you can't tell just from looking the difference between transsexuals and crossdressers. Some transsexuals who transition late or who aren't on hormones or without surgery may be much less passable than some crossdressers. And most crossdressers want to use the ladies room too. Once you open up the restrooms to crossdressers, then you do have the possibility of pee creepsters lurking. And you have the certainty of the general populace getting creeped out by the possibility of pee creepsters.
Clearly this Arizona thing is deplorable, but I think restroom rights right now should just be for transsexuals who have transitioned, including drivers license. Restroom rights for the rest of the trans community should wait until we are more out and about in the community and publicly accepted.
Need I point out that this sort of statement would/does massively piss off the trans community? Trans activists are extremely averse to any "official" definition of what does and does not constitute trans. If you say you're trans, that's good enough, regardless of how you present yourself, whether you've sought out any assistance from a medical professional, or how long you've self-identified with that label.
To some degree, I understand it, especially with how murky the concept of gender can be, but your statement that it would be easy to prove a cisgender man is lying about being trans is, in fact, a false statement.
Secondly, allowing transwomen to use women's restrooms won't allow men to use women's restrooms. This isn't rocket science. If the goal is to prevent men from going into women's restrooms, whipping their dicks out, and assaulting/flashing/whatever-ing the women inside, then trans people have fuck-all to do with it. Such a man wouldn't be protected by laws allowing transwomen to walk in there and quietly take a piss. No, not even if he puts on a dress and a shitty wig first.
Your flaw here isn't a failure to swallow my agenda so much as a failure to think rationally and realistically.
Mr. Savage points out the issue very well: What is the problem that these laws are meant to correct? Do most places even have laws saying that ordinary men may not use women's restrooms? If there is a problem with people of one gender going into bathrooms reserved for the other gender—any problem—then yes, the law should have something in there to explain how gender is to be determined, but it doesn't sound like there is any.
Yes, there is some creep factor in her story, but the bottom line is that nothing happened except people felt uncomfortable that she was there.
And really, get over seeing naked people in the locker room. The point of the locker room is a place to change clothes and shower. There's going to be some nudity involved, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But you'd better not mistake their irrational fear of bathroom-dwelling trans people for transphobia. Apparently that's not what "phobia" means down in Dipshitville.
This is not about republicanism.
This is not about libertarianism.
Barry Goldwater would have been appalled by this. So too William F. Buckley, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, all the Bushes, the Romneys, and the Pauls. I don't know where this depraved dialect of Republicans is coming from but it clearly is antithetical to the principles of those I enumerated.
"what I think about trans ladies using women's* facilities"
1. In women's restrooms, everyone uses stalls, and any bathroom I've been in, we close the doors. So, even a pre-op trans woman isn't going to be seen or see anything.
2. In guys rooms, you're not supposed to look at guys pissing at the urinal next to you.
3. In guys rooms, there are also stalls, and I would imagine that many trans men would use these--just don't know the logistics of pissing standing up without an actual dick. If you could, see #2 above.
4. Kids of opposite genders are with their parents in bathrooms all the time.
So, the only significant exposure might be that a trans man would have to avert his eyes while walking past the urinal. Am I missing something? And I think I might be particularly with #3.
However, not only was my point badly made, but it was not germaine to the discussion. I certainly did not mean to imply that the woman in question should NOT use the ladies locker/bathroom. I firmly believe that she should.
I’m taking tiny sips of a very nice and delicate Côte du Rhône so I don’t get too blasted tonight. But I’m still trying to calm down.
You see, perhaps my dearest and closest friend in the Seattle area is a male-to-female post-operative (mercy, all those hyphens!) transsexual. He, when he was he, was a date of mine through the gay personals in the Seattle Gay News. We had a couple of “dates” but we both quickly realized that we’d be just great friends instead, and so it has been since then. Then, he, in his fifties, took the very brave step to travel to Bangkok and actually, as it turned out, to get excellent reassignment surgery he could afford in the world at that time. Of course, he had been wishing for this all his life. Even begging his mother as a child coming of age, as Christine Jorgensen was making the news, to please put him on a hormonal treatment for surgery.
It was difficult for me, a real mental pretzel if you will, and a philosophical, if not cosmic, exercise for anyone who has a had a family member or loved one to wrap their mind around why on earth would someone want to change their gender? Its unfathomable to most of us, even to most gays and lesbians, to what would motivate someone to undergo such a monumental change in life. Perhaps the biggest change one could make in life at all.
“It was like I got on the wrong bus and I couldn’t get off” – that’s exactly how it is, as another transsexual friend Janice Van Cleve told me -- who was very instrumental in transsexual rights and early same-sex marriage rights not so many years ago.
Essentially, the need for being a transsexual is because of a birth defect. Normally, the body and the mind match as far as gender identity. So, considering how many other birth defects there are in the world, why is it so unreasonable for a minority of insane Republicans to assume that gender-reassignment surgery is not a viable solution to a birth defect?
Is homosexuality a birth defect? No. Because there are no physiological, pathological, or psychological repercussions from being homosexual. However for gender-identity disorder, for my friend there was, decades of severe very deep emotional pain. Trying to make it as a gay man didn't work in his case.
So that’s why I’m so fumed. Especially as same-sex marriage acceptance is gaining ground recognized even by Fox News, one would think that intelligent people would understand that as civilization grapples with sexual issues, the obvious and scientific reasoning would be unavoidable and ultimately enlightening as our great country adheres to the greatest words of our founding: “The pursuit of happiness.”
I’m also fuming because I’m constantly after my friend to go out more, enjoy social functions, more shopping wherever you want, more traveling wherever you want, and f**k the bigots. But now I understand her agoraphobia even more. I don’t blame her.
This is so f**king outrageous. Just when you think the tide has turned. That society is forever and ultimately scientifically progressive as time itself dictates. But alas, this is like the sad torching of the library of Alexandria in ancient Egypt.
Scottsdale/Phoenix is a magnet for washed up losers looking for a new start in life.
Scottsdale is a magnet for anti-social, racist, wannabe libertarian assholes.
Phoenix metro is the fucking armpit of America.
This is a public service announcement and not a joke.
I don't see two sides to this at all. I see a need for people - all humans - to be able pee in peace. My girlfriend is not out to hurt anyone. Nor are the many trans people I know or am acquainted with. For that matter, neither are the butch lesbians I've known who have also been looked at strangely in women's bathrooms - should they be forced to use the men's room too?
Everything you said. I am far more worried about the safety of trans women forced to use the men's room than about my own safety in a restroom where not all the women were necessarily born that way.
But I think the whole thing is ridiculous anyway. I remember back when I was but a wee lass, that asshole Phyllis Schlafly used "unisex restrooms" as one of her weird talking points to scare the states out of ratifying the ERA. I could not understand what the big deal was supposed to be. Of course, I was picturing private stalls -- I don't think I'd ever seen a urinal at that point in my life. But even so, it just seemed like such an absurd thing to get all het up about.
Pure superstition, I think. It's about cooties.
1. There is currently no legal restriction to allow men to enter women's restrooms and vice-versa
2. Therefore we should make a law that would restrict people to only use the bathroom of their birth sex
3. Because if we don't then there will be men pretending to be women so that they can sneak into the women's restroom.
Two questions to these types of people:
Q1. Right now, what's stopping a man from pretending to be a women so that they can sneak into a woman's restroom? (hint: nothing)
Q2. Follow up to Q1: How big of an issues is this currently? (considering that these supports are citing future hypothetical scenario instead of past events that might give credibility to their augment, my guess is that this is a non issue).
Making a law to solve a problem that does not exist is just stupid.
There. Problem solved.