New anti-trans legislation in North Carolina

[SlowFJH]

Of course it's been driven by the religious right wing. But it does aim to achieve what many posters here appear to advocate - namely that biological males can only use men's toilets and changing rooms etc. Biological females must only use women's toilets and changing rooms. Will it gain wider support?

Almond
Then he's not a man

So you'd prefer him to use the ladies? And perhaps risk his life at the hands of some gun-toting pillock thinking he'd gone into the women's room for some purpose other than simply using the toilet?

No he didn't make that point. He made the point that he would have to share facilities with 'your wife.' That has very different and personal connotations.

There are hundreds of threads on here discussing trans issues,

I don't have a personal worry about it because I don't live in North Carolina. Actually neither does the 'your wife' bearded person. So the chances of either of us ending up in a bathroom with DV campaigner Ann McCrory are pretty slim.

If he was visiting your town, which toilet would you prefer him to use?

Slow

How many people have been shot in public toilets in the last year in America?

Have you any stats supporting your assertion that a "gun toting pillock" would shoot her because she presents as male?

Interesting that you are so hot on trans right but totally fine with xenophobia and widely sweeping statements about the population of an entire state of America. Almost 10 million "gun toting pillocks" live there.

I've seen a fair few photos around of trans people who will now be expected to use the bathroom connected with their assigned gender at birth. Apparently the expectation now is that bulky bearded men (who happen to have vaginas) will be using the women's toilets and very feminine women in high heels and make up will be picking their way through the men's.

I must admit my immediate thought was that either in North Carolina the expectation was that those sex offenders who were so desperate to get in the women's loos will now be totally put off by the sign saying "vaginas only" and women can feel safe in the knowledge that if someone walks in with no breasts and a beard, she's totally safe because that man was born without a penis. Or this is an excuse to harass trans people for not gender confirming, or butch lesbians or very effeminate men for that matter, who will now be expected to 'prove' their gender any time they want to take a leak outside of the home.

It is a ridiculous law and I'm certain it won't stop a single sexual assault from taking place.

As, I have said there are about a hundred threads on this topic.

My town has gender neutral toilets and changing rooms.

I am asking if you, Almond, would be happy for James to be using the same toilet, changing room, hospital ward as you (if circumstances brought you together). Would you be happy with that? Would it be progress in your view?

Alis
Yes you are completely right. There are far far more cases of the tiny tiny number of trans people using a public lavatory for purposes other than simply going to the loo than there are gun crimes in America. Obvs.

And as I have said, if you want to read views on that topic, there are lots of threads. I have no interest in discussing this.

My points remain...

a. Your OP was incorrect. Trans people can use the facilities of the opposite sex if they have legal documentation.

b. The Ann McCrory issue was sexist, unless someone has some additional information about why she is being brought into this debate as some nameless person.

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my post

Clearly you cannot provide any statistics relevant to your argument.

Just answer the question. Would you be happy for James to share the same toilets / changing room as you?

I really don't care!

Alis
Clearly you cannot provide any statistic relevant to your argument

Can you?

How many trans people have been caught doing anything in a public lavatory that they should not have been?

Well, I am actually right now in the state where Mr. Sheffield lives so I suppose I could be faced with it. I don't care which one he uses to be honest.

But his comment about the governor's wife was indeed very sexist and more than a bit nasty.

Almond
I really don't care!

The exclamation mark adds so much poignancy and power to your very cogent and well-argued point.

It is generally considered customary that the person who opens the discussion can back up their own argument.

Mine is not toilet specific. Transwomen commit violent crime at the same rate as men. Or have you not heard of Davina Ayrton, Claire Darbyshire, Tara Hudson to name but three who have recently made headlines? Therefore, men regardless of how they feel, should not be allowed in to female spaces just because they feel like.

Do you realise that you have derailed your own thread?

Your thread was supposedly about whether or not the kind of legislation in North Carolina will gain wider support.

A quick internet search tells me yes, it will, because other places have been through similar legal scenarios and numerous other pieces of legislation are in the pipeline within the U.S. It is much more unclear what will happen in the UK.

Unless your OP was not only factually incorrect but also disingenuous and you actually don't want to discuss that at all, but want to go on about women's feelings about sexual assaults and who should or should not be comfortable around whom.

Or you just wanted to go on about the religious right and call people pillocks and morons on one of the most important days in the Christian Calendar.

Seneca (and others) you're using the sexist card against James because you know you're on the losing side of this debate. There is nothing sexist at all about his tweet. He could have said "a woman" or "women" rather than "your wife".

It will gain wider support because there is backlash all over the US, especially in the South where I have lived most of my life, against the legalization of same-sex marriage, most of it fueled by the religious right and downright hate-inspired elements. There are similar laws being proposed in several states. It's just really difficult in the current climate to separate the legitimate issues about women's only spaces from the wider issues of protecting LGBT people from discrimination without giving aid and comfort to some of the darker elements in US society.

OP, I think Seneca is on your 'side' of this debate.

He absolutely could have said women. That would have made complete sense. But he chose not to. He chose to talk about one woman and make it personal.

Seneca is on your side op.

Try reading the responses you receive properly.

The good thing about the intertubes is that in decades to come historians will be able to look at this site and be amazed at the insanely bigoted logic of the anti-trans lobby of the religious right and the radical feminist movement. People will read all the anti-trans comments here and view them with the same dismay as stories (from less than a generation ago) of when black people weren't allowed to use the same drinking fountains or restrooms as whites.

Trans people are human beings with rights. They pose no more of a threat to you than any other person.

Turn down the fear. Turn up the tolerance.

I will say again.

Trans people in North Carolina who have legally changed their sex are allowed to use the changing room of that sex.

Although I assume that future historians can probably look that up for themselves.

Waves at future historians.

I'm not wholly comfortable being on OP's side, but I suppose in this I am. But this debate is very different than it is in the UK, where you don't have to contend with the political strength of the religious right. That strength is responsible for much of what is wrong in US society, especially for women.