Pro- and Anti-Trans Rights Protests Compete Within 200 Feet at the State Capitol

Comments

1
Best sign seen at rally today: "We're not here to dupe, we're here to poop." I regret not taking photos.
2
If conservatives had their way, they'd have burly dudely trans men going to the women's room, and girly feminine trans women going to the men's room - they would literally create the *opposite* kind of thing they're hoping to achieve (not to mention, they gasp'ed when trans men took to the stage, completely unaware that they existed).

In fact, getting rid of these protections, thus forcing transgender men into women's bathrooms, would actually make it so any would-be cis male predator *WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO DRESS THE PART* and just claim he's a trans guy just "following the law."

This whole debate is nothing more than an attack on transgender women. It is nothing more than a bunch of transphobic bigots trying to tell trans women that they're "really just men." It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anybody - those are just all "convienence" arguments - it has *EVERYTHING* to do with humiliating, deligitimizing, and dehumanizing transgender women.

The reality is that most of the people against protections for trans people just straight up don't want trans people to exist. They want them to be discriminated against. They want them to be treated like shit. That's their real agenda. It is an agenda of fear, hatred, and ignorance.

On top of it, when you *actually* look at the real statistics, trans people are the ones being assaulted and harassed in bathrooms by cis people, not the other way around. There are *COUNTLESS* reports on the books of trans people being attacked in such settings, and not a *SINGLE REPORT* of a trans person ever attacking a cis person.

Additionally, from a legal standpoint, one must actually be transgender in order to be afforded transgender protections. If a cis male predator were to go into a woman only space and commit a crime, even just voyeuring, they would *NOT* be covered under such protections, and actually would face an additional penalty on top of the arresting charge. The realtiy is nobody is going to pretend to be trans to sexually assault others - besides the fact that sexual assault and sexual voyuering is already illegal last I looked, a sign on the door isn't going to protect anybody from any would-be rapist, anyways.

With transgender protections in place, there has *NOT* been an increase in sexual assaults in bathrooms. The only thing there has been is transgender women - who act, behave, and look like any other woman - going to women's spaces to do their business, and transgender men - who act, behave, and look like any other man - going to men's spaces to do their business.

WOW, WHAT A HORRIBLE WORLD WE LIVE IN. The poor children.
3
@2
Paragraph 6 is interesting and I think your statements are incorrect.
But I might be wrong.
So do you have any links to explain/justify your position?
Thanks.
4
"In fact, getting rid of these protections, thus forcing transgender men into women's bathrooms, would actually make it so any would-be cis male predator *WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO DRESS THE PART*"

Exactly, these bills seem to make zero sense even on their own terms. It's just free-floating disgust with people.
5
Why are Republicans hanging out in bathrooms checking out peoples genitals while they pee?? What's wrong with these people?
6
http://mynorthwest.com/992/2913750/Man-c…

Now we have to deal with this issue. How do we police the non conforming person who wants to change in the ladies room. We have opened a can of worms with this.
7
@6
The Rule allows exactly that.
8
@3:
Q: Can men now go into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms?

A: No. Only females can go into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms in a gender segregated situation. This includes transgender females who identify as female. The rules do not protect persons who go into a restroom or locker room under false pretenses. For example, if a man declares himself to be transgender for the sole purpose of entering a women’s restroom or locker room, then the rule would not protect him.
From the WSHRC FAQ.

Seems pretty clear to me.
9
@8
Check your fantasy.
You are in serious heavy denial if you think Rule is clear.
But that's fine, plenty of time for law suits and I have no dog in this fight anyway.
FWIW, that FAQ has no value legally.
10
@9: Excuse me? What "fantasy"?
11
I was at the protest (pro-trans rights, of course) and I really appreciated Brady speaking at our rally and speaking for us in the WA legislature. We need passionate and vocal allies like Brady speaking for LGBTQ rights at the national level. #TeamBrady #Brady4Congress