Ohio voted down legal weed and legal protections for LGBT individuals. Sadly when we make steps forward there is always a backlash. But the good news is the backlash is short lived and soon turned around.

All the transmen in Houston need to butch it up as much as possible and hang out in various ladies rooms in public buildings/offices. That might make some things a bit clearer for Houston area voters.

I'm pretty sure the Super duper Christian men that voted against it just wanted more Trans women in the men's bathroom looking at them.

You're trying to use logic and reasoning with people who abandoned logic and reasoning ages ago.

They don't care about facts or reality and will reject them outright. They're motivated entirely by their own emotionally-driven, irrational squeamishness.

Really, @2's suggestion is perhaps the only way to go. Actions speak louder than words.

A twelve-year-old girl was just raped in Houston by a man in a public bathroom. Not a man in a dress "pretending to be a woman", but a man. These scare tactics are just bullshit, and open up transwomen to more violence and discrimination.

Yeah, you know what doesn't stop people from rape and assault? Laws. Rape and assault are already illegal. Men still go into people's homes, bathrooms, cars, etc and rape and assault them. And they sure as fuck don't need to dress as women to do so. Because why would they? We already have a rape saturated culture in which they're unlikely to be reported, caught, or even prosecuted.

Also, Houston is looking for a man who raped a 12 year old in a women's bathroom right now. Dressed as a man. http://jezebel.com/houston-detective-12-…

I sure can see why so many trans people hate you, Dan.

One problem that trans people have that gay people didn't (don't): because TGs are such a tiny minority, they can't change hearts and minds so easily simply by "coming out of the closet" - e.g., dressing all the time, telling people they're trans even if they can pass, etc. Most people don't know, and aren't likely to really get to know, any transfolks, so the problem remains abstract to them, and they're easily able to maintain the attitude that all TGs are crazy.

It's a sticky wicket. I think that's why we really have to rely on the courts for this one, and just throatcram the wngnuts until they give up.

@1 Ohio didn't vote down legal weed, they voted down the immediate monopolization of the legal weed industry. The bill in question specified 10 specific addresses (including one owned by Nick Lachey) as being the only ones allowed to grow weed.

As a Straight Man, let me say: I don't find women's restrooms sexy. At all.

They are generally cleaner, though.

How are they going to enforce this law? Are women going to be making sure everyone who gets in the stall next to them has a vagina?

I suspect that this will require good, honorable Christian men who are really men to have to make inspections on demand in women's restrooms.

You're over-thinking it. Sure, people tie themselves in intellectual knots when defending the indefensible in court. Voters are just prejudiced. Educate them in order to cure their ignorance.

What is the argument for allowing a trans woman in a bathroom but not allowing straight men? Why not just remove all restrictions on bathrooms?

Yes Max@11 and they don't knock you out with the smell of piss.
People of Houston, You guys are just continuing to feed the stereotype that you'all are rednecks or as they are called in my country, bogans.

What I want to know is where they find all these whackadoodles. Here in Texahoma* I've been surrounded for the most part by people with more economically conservative views than me, but people tend to be socially fairly liberal (with the exception of liking guns). From the other students at the uni to my fellow retail grunts down at the mall, people seem to not really care what gays do and (the ones I've talked to at least) recognize that abortion is very frequently a necessary evil.
Where are those nutjob Texans I was promised? Is it that I'm in the far north of the state? Is it that I'm in a big city of ~100,000? Is it that I'm in a college town? Where do they keep all these fruitsy nutbars when they're not voting to whitewash slavery in textbooks and legalize discrimination?

*and I really hope there's some local club for queer people called "Texahomos" because the pun is too good to pass up

The bathroom argument always comes up. I remember then the ERA was being fought, one argument was heard over and over: "If the ERA passes we are going to have to have unisex bathrooms."
Surprisingly, almost every home in America has a unisex bathroom, even though the ERA failed.
The right wing is very, very protective of their bathrooms.

I feel this article seems to have missed the entire point of the ad campaign.

Nobody is implying that transgender individuals are dangerous and there simply to attack women and children. That is absolutely not the case. The campaign was against the very vague language of the law that allowed people who were dangerous to falsely assume the label of transgender and get closer to women/children in restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities. This is an issue for both sides of the debate. Women and children are put at risk, and the transgender community could be looked upon with disdain as people abuse the label.

According to the language of the ordinance, "innate identification" is a qualifying factor for gender identity. No other factors needed to be considered. It means any person could claim they identify as the opposing gender and get access to otherwise private facilities. This is beneficial for those who are gender-fluid, but ripe for abuse by sexual predators.

There have already been questionable events that have happened in other cities to back these concerns up. Toronto had a convicted sexual predator pose as a transgender woman and claim he identified female. A women's shelter had to let him in due to anti-discrimination laws and he then proceeded to sexually assault a deaf woman and a survivor of domestic violence. Had the shelter been able to question him at more than just his word, these women would have never suffered the trauma that they did.

There are also cases of concern in more grey areas. Washington State had a case where a 45 year old transgender woman was using a locker room facility that was also shared with a nearby high school. Young girls and parents were upset at constantly seeing male genitalia around the locker room and sauna. This was legal though due to non-discrimination laws and things remain as they are. Yet, can you see how this is ripe for abuse by a sexual predator? No, I am not saying this particular individual was a predator, but others will see the story and realize they can pose as a transgender individual and flash young girls without recourse.

Transgender individuals were not the target of the campaign. Sexual predators who abuse the label of transgender are and there are some very real cases to back up such concerns.

The ordinance needs to be redrafted to fix the loophole. This does not mean removing gender identity from the proposal, but simply finding a way that criminals cannot abuse it and bring harm to others. This benefits both sides of the debate. Imagine if one of these incidents happened in Houston. You know many knee-jerk reactions will be to blame and/or attack the transgender community despite the suspect merely posing as transgender. It is better to make sure we are all protected from such events before passing this ordinance. Many other cities who ordinances I have read are very careful with their language or include certain exemptions as a cautionary measure.

I hope this puts things into a better perspective. I am from Houston and the people I talk to are thinking along the same lines. It is not transgender individuals they fear, it is the loophole in the ordinance. Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the nation with a very low rate of discrimination complaints. I believe the pro-HERO chart pegged it at 0.006%. This is not a city of hate, but it is a city that wants to make sure laws are rock solid and keep the safety of everyone in mind.

They used transwomen to argue against gay employment protections in the 70s, too, even though those ordinances didn't include transgender protections. The argument then was that schools would have to hire transwomen, and kids would be exposed to "male" teachers in dresses. Back then, they successfully promoted the fear that kids would SEE a guy in a dress. I guess it's a measure of progress that they've had to ratchet up the fear factor to RAPE in order to still scare people.

@1 - My liberal, pro-marijuana friends in Ohio were posting about voting against that marijuana measure because it granted an oligarchy to 10 predetermined farms. Basically, a bunch of 1% swept in and tried to capitalize on the work of marijuana legalization advocates by writing their farms as the only ones allowed to operate in the state. Even the most well-known marijuana advocate in the state was writing newspapers editorials opposing it. It's defeat should not be interpreted as a bellwether for anything other than that the oligarchs can't always fool everyone all of the time.

If you have a vagina, use the women's room. How is this hard to understand?

@26: Somehow, I think it will upset women to have Sgt. Shane Ortega, seen here enjoying a day at the beach, using the ladies' room.

@27 Im totally ok with Shane using my bathroom. Damn!

Dan, I think to a certain extent your missing the forest for an particularly obnoxious tree. Remember, the ordinance said nothing about bathrooms. It did say a lot about not discriminating against LGBT people in employment, housing, access to services, etc etc. The people who fought the law were not fighting to keep straight men out of women's bathrooms. They were using the most elemental, gut wrenching scenario they could think of -- SOME MAN BURSTING IN ON YOU WHILE YOU PEE! to scare people into voting down an ordinance that would give dignity and protection to the people they hate. Because -- thanks in part to people like you -- it is no longer socially acceptable to call down hate on the queers and the fags.

This is the same battle you've been fighting your whole life. The homophobes are retreating to smaller and smaller redoubts, but they're still fighting the same way and for the same reasons.

Excellent article in Slate (link below) and another one in Reason (link below) about "Why are segregated restrooms still a thing at all?" -- and I hope John Oliver does that segment about it soon.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/…

https://reason.com/archives/2014/04/11/g…

I've never understood this weird attitude about public restrooms; these idiots act like if a man can just manage to pass through the magical force field that protects the women's rest room, he'll see naked women or half-dressed women or find women who are especially vulnerable to being attacked. You won't see anything in the ladies room you won't see in the grocery store or on the street or in the airport; any women not fully clothed are locked in private stalls. And attacking a woman in the restroom isn't much different than attacking her outside of it, except that one of these places usually smells worse.

Agree with Haley @31 - also, the magic force field around schools that prevents crazy people from attacking children isn't doing so well these days, either.

@23: I'm sorry, but the idea that this campaign was solely about preventing criminals from posing as trans people in women's bathrooms is just bullshit. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said, in his victory speech, "I'm glad Houston led tonight to end this constant political correctness attack on what we know in our heart and our gut as Americans is not right."

Do you honestly think that the "political correctness attack" he is referring to is anything other than trans people asserting their right to exist? Do you honestly think he was not intentionally stoking the fires of transphobia in order to mobilize ignorant voters to cut off an LGBT-benefitting ordinance at the knees?

Further, the "loophole" you describe cannot be closed without putting an undue burden on trans people to live their lives. Singling out trans people and forcing them to use separate or incorrect facilities is Jim Crow all over again. Are you going to require that I go through a millimeter-wave scanner to prove that I have a vagina in order to access womens' spaces? (Including spaces like bathrooms, in which nobody but me is going to see what's in my pants?) Trans people are often financially disadvantaged and don't always have the resources to afford surgery, or hormone therapy, or a legal name/ID change, or even appropriate clothes that fit them properly. If you start using any of those factors to put up barriers to women's (or men's!) spaces, you are only further disadvantaging an already vulnerable and oppressed population who just want to fucking pee.

Your example of the man who infiltrated the Toronto women's shelter is sad, but not particularly relevant. Here is the story, for the curious. After reading about it, it's plain that the problem was not that this person gained access to a shelter by claiming to be trans. The problem was that he was a sex offender who committed multiple acts of assault. A woman who was geniuinely trans could do the same thing while having legitimate access to a women's shelter. Hell, a cis woman could do the same thing while having legitimate access to a women's shelter. But nobody talks about turning the cis lesbians away; it's always the trans gals, because we're seen in the media as freaks (or worse, as men), and campaigns like the one in Houston only serve to cement that perception.

Besides, the women's shelter example is not even what this campaign was about; it was about bathrooms, which have no one at the door to check your woman card before you go in. So if a man wanted to enter one in order to commit assault, he wouldn't have to fool anyone. He'd just go in and do it. Which, incidentally, is exactly what already happens.

Finally, your locker room example is nothing but more fear-mongering. "Oh no, a trans woman's penis was visible in a locker room! This person using the facilities for their intended use is only one step removed from someone using them to commit a crime! That is, no crime was committed here, but THERE COULD BE ONE AT ANY MOMENT!" If a man pretends to be trans and goes in there to flash people, it'll be pretty obvious he's acting inappropriately and he can be busted for that, not for just bringing a penis into the vagina room.

So yeah, color me unimpressed. I am not the least bit afraid that people will abuse the trans label in order to commit assault. It is much more likely that I (and my community) will be harmed by an ignorant and bigoted establishment and populace; I am far more afraid of that than I am of some dipshit sex offender. You think I'm worried about the trans community being looked upon with disdain? Well, guess what: we already are, and the shitshow in Houston is just the latest glob of spit in our eye.

Dan, the moment I read your article, I thought that the best person who fits the description of the pervy straight man posing as transgender is the Party of God's very own Mike Huckabee. Anyone remember his comments about how he would have loved to pretend to be transgender to look at naked girls? http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/m…

Crossdressers vastly outnumber trans women. Most crossdressers are attracted to women, and many round themselves up to trans when it comes time to use restrooms. I don't think anyone is dressing up in women's clothes to be a creeper, but I think this reaction is more about crossdresser phobia than anything else.

@35: I honestly think that the biggest problem that the MtF community faces (other than the difficulty of passing) is that people frequently conflate transvestite with transgender. A great deal of transphobia is predicated on the reaction of "ew, that's not a girl, that's a guy in a dress".

Which bathrooms should lesbians use? What about bisexuals?

Gee Alison. Of course they use the Lesbian restrooms or the Bisexual restrooms.
So Houston threw this whole thing out just to stop Trans* women using the Cis women's toilets. Way to show how bright and beautiful you are Houston.
No mention of Trans* men being a problem in the Cis men's toilets.
Seilo@33. Thanks for the reference, glad Celeste and her partner are heading out of H towards Seattle.