Okay, I didn't read all the comments, but how would this work? Will businesses be required to pay attendants to check IDs at their bathrooms? If, transgendered individuals must show their IDs, what about masculine-looking women trying to use the ladies' room and effeminate men trying to use the men's room? If someone suspects that they are transgendered, do they have to show their IDs to prove that they are *not* transgendered, and thus are not obligated to show their IDs?

Classic big-government Conservative over-regulation.

It would never be an actual policy, it's just a bit of something emotive to get pissed off conservatives on board

Krell's calm down. There is no law being passed to allow men in women's room. It's the exact opposite. It is forcing ladyboys to have official ID identifying them as women and not just letting them get a pass. That's why the liberals are so pissed off cause they think making a person prove in a court of law that they are truly transgendered is wrong and would rather just let any ol' perv wearing high heels and a dress walk on in.

I say, let's make sex change operations free to psychologically diagnosed ladyboys and mangirls and make bathrooms and chnaging rooms be genitalia based. Once they get their *free* sex change, they are free to use the once opposite changing room. Until then, they use the one marked to match. We could mark them like this:

Men
__
0

Women

\_/

You are correct Draug, I was responding originally to philcore's:

"So a grown man should be able to go into the woman's restroom while an 8 year old girl is in there using the restroom, because we don't want HIM to feel uncomfortable? Just because today he feels like a lady?"

Which sent the conversation spiralling down this awful course.

... why would a transgendered person go out of their way to be noticeable in a restroom? I can understand the viewpoint of the Arizonan lawmakers, they don't understand the viewpoint from a Trans* perspective, and they want to make sure the people of Arizona feel safe and sound (in their uniquely brute-force and clumsy way that hurts people who are hurt enough).

BUT I will note that Arizona requires one to have undergone SRS (sex reassignment operation) before getting their gender marker on their ID corrected. Which is something MOST Trans* people don't do, due to expense or medical reasons (like Hemophilia... the operation and its aftermath is quite bloody for a few months at least). Most Doctors require at least 2 years of HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) before going about getting an appointment set up, and at that point a Trans* person is rarely distinguishable from a cis-gendered person of the target gender.

So what I'm trying to say is that the lawmakers have their heart in the right place, but haven't done their research and will be doing some harm, maybe even a murder (or, more likely, suicide), but in the end laws will be changed to the good fortune of all, not just the majority or minority (may I note that I'm an extreme optimist?).

Sources:
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/
WPath Standards of Care (what doctors use to care for Trans* individuals): http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf (sorry about .pdf)

And a simple example of how HRT normally changes things:
http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/07/24/male-to-female-in-14-months-series-of-photos-document-transgender-girls-amazing-transformation/

@Draug, sure behaviour has some environmental impact aswell, but 4-6 years olds expressing their gender where it is different from that which was assigned at birth is not something they or their parents just choose.

Gender identity is hard-coded at an early stage of development, just as sex organs are hard-coded at one point, and sexuality (though it does not usually express itself until puberty) how we express these three things varies with culture and upbringing - how a penis actually looks like will depend on things like circumcision, but that is just a superficial difference, like the influence society has - society may define gender norms, but the brain is hard coded to identify with one or other (or none or both) of those genders.

And no Draug, most trans people i know WANT the law to recognise their trans gendered identity, it takes a lot of trouble (in Ireland) to get your passport changed from your assigned at birth gender (that is your sex) to your identified gender. Some countries (and states) don't allow this at all.

It is pretty important what legal recognition they can get, for things like marriage (though that will become somewhat less important if gay marriage laws are passed)

And as Tergem said, it is 18 months to 2 years of living as your identified gender on Hormone replacements before a doctor will consider bottom surgery (srs).

I don't have sources, i'm basing this on personal conversations with individuals who have been dealing with these issues in Ireland. But aside from Hormone replacement (which is not as simple as it sounds, can have nasty side-effects, apart from the time it takes to kick in and the learning required to deal with your new emotional responces to things) there is also laser surgery to remove facial hair, facial reconstruction to change the shape of the face, and vocal cord modifications (whose names escape me, but to help alter the sound of the voice) all add up to a pretty expensive bill.

And along with that, female-to-male bottom surgery (srs) can build something like a penis, but there will be very little sensitivity in it, and the resulting appendage isn't the most useful for things like sex... (and with strapons available it is more than likely that expensive and potentially dangerous surgery will be avoided by these men who can get as much sexual pleasure with partners without the surgery...)

So Draug, assuming a trans-woman is living as a woman in her day-to-day life, has not been outed in her community, has breast implants, and passes effectively as a female but has not turned her penis inside out (outside in?) you think she should be forced to use a mens room because the cubicles in the womens room might offend someone?

As for asking me to back up my claims, I don't have any links to evidence. I haven't done the research myself, nor read it. But as has been pointed out, penis weilding bad guys can enter women's restrooms REGARDLESS of the law. This does nothing to protect people it is intending to protect and it harms those trans people who should be innocent until proven guilty, right?

Also Krellin, Draug, please explain to me, what is with your massive obsession with penises in this whole conversation, why does the whole world revolve around them? The identity of people, their place in society? It is all about the penis, the only qualifying factor, the only thing to fear (when younger kids will pretty much accept what they see if it is explained to them, and not be freaked out in the slightest) There are many dangerous people in this world who i would not want near any of my kids, but what is between their legs has very little to do with it, what is between their ears is the worrying thing.


(this whole thing reminds me of this: http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny.html but i'm not sure why)

I have a friend that is trans, he goes into the mens bathroom, uses a stall and leaves, no one knows the difference

If a bunch of people feel so uncomfortable that the person in the stall near them may or may not have a penis than they need to get off their bigoted pedestal and chill out

mind your own business and let people do what they want

and a good point was made, who is checking these ids anyway? the bathroom attendant at your local mcdonalds?

A man can already go into a bathroom and prey on girls, because someone is trans does not mean they are automatically perverts out to take advantage of your children

"4-6 years olds expressing their gender where it is different from that which was assigned at birth is not something they or their parents just choose."

Actually, it can be where their parents are concerned. Don't underestimate the power of political agenda (liberal or conservative) when it comes to what parents will do to their kids. The parents may not even intentionally do it, but if mom or dad says to a little boy "Tinkerbell and Friends or Thomas the Tank Engine?" and mom lights up even just a little when she shows him the Tink DVD, the kid will respond to Tink to please mom, even though the kid may actually want Thomas. Over a matter of just months, the kid will become convinced that Tink is the way to go. Then when the parents introduce a Tinkerbell tee or a Thomas tee, the kid will pick the Tink tee for two reasons: one, he is more familiar now with Tink than with Thomas and two, mom lit up again when she showed him Tink more than she did when she showed him Thomas in the store.

Parent's do it unknowingly and kids respond to the subtle attitude differences. At that young age, kids just want to please mom and dad.

Lol Draug that is absolute pseudoscience.

"But as has been pointed out, penis weilding bad guys can enter women's restrooms REGARDLESS of the law. This does nothing to protect people it is intending to protect and it harms those trans people who should be innocent until proven guilty, right? "

By that logic, no law should exist because no law protects anyone. There are laws against men entering ladies rooms. There are laws against anyone molesting or harming anyone else. Those laws don't actually protect anyone either, but the first assumes that a man entering a ladies room is intent on doing women harm. Is that not the same as assuming a man is guilty until proven innocent? Your logic works for that law as well.

The law is about providing punishment to thos who would break it and to provide a measure of protecting from additional hamr by providing a legal barrier.

Now, I come back to the fact that locker/dressing rooms regularly have people walking around nearly or fully undressed. How do you handle this when "she" still has a wang hanging down. Admitedly, it is probably shrunk to a couple of peas and a mini carrot size, but it is still there for all the little girls who happen to be there with their moms changing to go swimming.

And Obi - If there is no problem with it, then why not allow public nudity? There are *laws* against walking down mainstreet starknaked. There are *laws* against exposing oneself in public. But you say the penis is no big deal. Seems the *law* disagrees with you.

Sorry, that should have been to Ora, not Obi.

It's my suspicions that a Trans* person would try everything they could to avoid being outed (say, swim skirts, using private changing rooms, or not going at all to not risk it) because if they were seen naked in a locker room they wouldn't be recognized as who they are, which is the last thing they want.

...I have some reading to catch up on, apparently...WOW!

No, SY. It is child psychology. Something I minored in at college and something my wife, who majored in social services, stupied more extensively than most non-psychologist or non-physicians would have. She agrees with me regarding that analysis. The courts have recognized this for a long time which is why children in abuse cases get questioned by the judge and a psychiatrist without their parents present to avoid the intimidation factor the parents place on the child by their mere presence. It is establsihed science and nothing "pseudo" about it.

"Sex is an act. Gender is body parts."

I disagree, Draug--

One's sex is one's body parts.

One's gender is a self-determined identity.

"I'm pretty sure that references to sex in this context refer to being biologically XX or XY, not the verb. Gender isn't body parts, it's a social and psychological construct."

Exactly, Hereward

I love when people with no direct experience in raising children act as if they have a clue.

Again...SYn...you are going to be a **horrible** father...

As for the moron Woof insisting that we should all just chill out about men in the women's room, that anyone should be able to do whatever they want....I guess I am now beyond shocked at the number of absoutely depraved sociopaths that exist on this site, who think communities have no right to their own standards, let own the enforcement of standards. when did it become the social "norm" that the 1% of sexual deviants set the rules for everyone.

If you want to live an "alternate" lifestyle, be my guest. But fuck you if you think society is supposed to turn upside-down to conform to your socially demented attitudes about gender and PRIVACY. It used to be the sexual freaks that demanded privacy...now all they want to do is shove their sexuality in our faces. God good...fuck off!

"Sex is an act. Gender is body parts."

I disagree, Draug--

One's sex is one's body parts.

One's gender is a self-determined identity.
obiwanobiwan (181 )
03:50 PM
+1
"I'm pretty sure that references to sex in this context refer to being biologically XX or XY, not the verb. Gender isn't body parts, it's a social and psychological construct."

Exactly, Hereward



OBI - you idiot, you just supported two contradictory view points. You are an idiot.

" The other *huge* flaw with this *idiotic* concept is that as soon as you give permission for swinging dicks that "feel" like a woman to go in to the women's room, you immediately open up the door to all the *perverts* that just want to go to the ladies room to feel up women. But of course, such common sense escapes assholes like Obi..."

But krellin!

You just got done shouting repeatedly that just because "A FEW" gun owners might abuse their right to own an AR-15 doesn't mean we should penalize ALL gun owners...

So we should penalize all transgendered people for the actions of a few who break the rules, but not penalize all gun owners for the actions of a few people who break the rules and, say, shoot 20 people?

Obi - when did I just get done supporting AR-15 owners? Link, please...

Nobody wants to penalize "transgendered" people. We want people with DICK to go to the bathroom where ALL the people with DICK go to the bathroom.

Bathrooms are not about "feelings"...they are about EXCRETION with your anatomy.

What the fuck is wrong with these people that they are going to get their panties in a bunch and judge their welf-worth on what bathroom they use, anyway? Good god...talk about a manufactured, FAKE issue. But I can gaurantee you my daughter will be traumitized by some asshole with a dick in her bathroom!

But since you have **zero** experience with children, this concept is beyond you.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.

Further - gun owners currently HAVE a right to own guns -- you are trying to take their right away.

DICKed people HAVE a right to go to the bathroom with all the DICKs excrete.
VAGINA'd people have a right to go to the bathroom where all the vagina's are, and they have the right to be free of dick in their private moments. YOU are tryign to take that right away.

I have a strong suspicion that the feminists haven't cuaght wind of this bullshit yet - because I can't think of a single woman I know who would want a transgendered MAN in their bathroom. THAT is what this is about...not about some fantasized "right" for a sexual deviant to "feel" OK about HIMself.

"when did I just get done supporting AR-15 owners? Link, please.."

Every time you've shouted against any sort of gun control?

"So we should penalize all transgendered people for the actions of a few who break the rules, but not penalize all gun owners for the actions of a few people who break the rules and, say, shoot 20 people? "

A lone gunman (or even a pair) kills 20 people. They then are killed by the cops or put in jail for life or put in a psych ward for 20 or 30 years. A perv pretending to be a tranny gets his jollies a few times then lies low for a while so the heat dies off and does it again. This cycle continues for decades and decades with the perv continuing to victimize women and children.

Additionally, most here (Krellin included) believe in *reasonable* gun control laws. Not outright bannings as guns have self defense purposes. But penalizing less than 1% of the population to protect 49% of it, fuck yeah. We do it all the time.

"One's gender is a self-determined identity."

"Gender isn't body parts, it's a social and psychological construct."

That's contradictory how?

"A lone gunman (or even a pair) kills 20 people."

Tell that to James Holmes, to Newtown shooter, and (I want to say) to the shooter in the New Orleans parade (Don't know if that's over 20 or "merely" in the teens, but close enough anyway for inclusion here.)

"A perv pretending to be a tranny..."

So you're going to penalize actual transgendered people for what perverts--who regardless of action taken will STILL be perverts, surely, if the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defense is used, then surely in the same way you'd argue guns or no killers would still find a way to kill trangendered rights or no perverts will still find a way to be perverts?--for the actions OTHERS take?

"But since you have **zero** experience with children, this concept is beyond you."

Come Saturday I (*shudder*) will have experience dealing with kids, as I FINALLY landed a job...

...at a water park.

...

Me. White as snow (maybe whiter.)
Me. Who wears a blazer whether it's 10 or 110 out.
Me. Who hates kids.
Me. Who burns easily, has never been to a water park, and thus couldn't answer the question to start the interview--"Why do you want to work at a water park?" (in my defense, the application just described the post as a city job, it said NOTHING about working at a water park, so I was sort of caught off guard) and thus somehow worked my way into having the longest interview of everyone...most everyone else got 10 minutes, I got 30 by...

Answering every question with something from Shakespeare or Twain or Virginia Woolf or my own experience tutoring others on those authors and other writers as well.

Yeah.

Dunno how that happened...but it did...and so I have a job (first paycheck to tomorrow.)

So yes, I WILL have experience with kids come Saturday.

I hate to say this... but that ruined your Ethos in this argument.

""One's gender is a self-determined identity."

"Gender isn't body parts, it's a social and psychological construct."

That's contradictory how? "

Self-identity isn't social. The first says psychological only. The second includes social. So a bit contradictory.

Re: the whole gun thing. Taking guns away completely from 20% of the population versus taking the ability to pee in one place (but not in other places) from less than 1%... Not quite an apples to oranges comparison. The better comparison is banning assault weapons (something I'm in favor of) to banning the use of women's rooms to shemales (something I'm also in favor of). So no contradiction on my part.